Criminals will still find ways to get them if they want them however.

Right, so what is the point of making new laws that we know criminals are just going to violate anyway. Seems like a waste of time...

Truth_Hurts,

Your last line, "Criminals will still find ways to get them if they want them however" shows the futility of making any new laws.

Why should my ability to legally procure anything for my own use - regardless of how stupid or useless someone else may think it - be restricted? This same argument applies to high capacity magazines, automatic firearms, etc. All making something illegal does is jack up the price to compensate the seller's risk for those that want it at any price - it does absolutely NOTHING to keep the contraband out of the hands that really want it, and is an unwarranted inconvenience to those otherwise law-abiding citizens that do.

I live in MD where it's illegal to possess pistol magazine that holds more than 20 rounds, or a rifle mag that holds more than 10 rounds, and where getting a concealed carry permit is all-but impossible unless one is politically connected, or a security guard. It's not a coincidence that MD is one of the most violent states in the country, any more than it's a coincidence that all but one of the mass assaults involving more than three casualties (in the US) have taken place at places where firearms were prohibited; prohibited, that is, to all but the assailant.

It's like Heinlein said almost a half-century ago: "An armed society is a polite society".

So, by the logic portrayed here, why have laws against possession of cocaine, heroin, etc...criminals can get it anyway....

is that heinlein line supposed to be ironic?

By the logic of this thread, why have laws at all? I mean, making murder illegal doesn't prevent all murders, and outlawing nuclear weapons doesn't necessarily stop people from building them. What a ridiculous line of reasoning. Outlawing (or at least minimally regulating) large magazines won't stop everyone from getting them but it will make it harder. We as a society (and more specifically our politicians) need to stand up to the gun rights extremists and say that well-regulated means just that. There is no legitimate reason for anyone to have these magazines, just like there's no legitimate reason for a nutjob to amass an arsenal in his mom's basement. And enough of this BS about arming ourselves against the government. It's completely empty talk. Most Americans don't know or care enough about what the government (you know, their representatives) does to take up arms against it. It would require an effort, and it's just much easier to switch the channel and continue to whine.

oldgaffer--It's not a coincidence that MD is one of the most violent states in the country, any more than it's a coincidence that all but one of the mass assaults involving more than three casualties (in the US) have taken place at places where firearms were prohibited; prohibited, that is, to all but the assailant.

Sorry old gaffer, I just don't believe these statements. Could you please tell us where you got this information. If it's from Limbaugh or Fox Cable News ... forget it!

Even if you ban high capacity mags, any that were manufactured prior to the passing of such a law would be grandfathered in. You would still be able to buy plenty of them as the market would be flooded with them. In fact, I don't recall any issue with getting high capacity mags even with the prior ban in place.

If you liberals want to ban something, ban Batman. He's a rich, Zimmerman minded vigilante, who answers to protect the elite 1%. Not to mention, this movie has obviously had a very bad influence on society as the "Joker" is currently incarcerated in a Colorado jail for killing 12 people.

Yeah, I know. Batman is protected free speech but the 2nd Amendment is "negotiable". Good luck convincing people of that.

"By the logic of this thread, why have laws at all? I mean, making murder illegal doesn't prevent all murders, and outlawing nuclear weapons doesn't necessarily stop people from building them."

Ok, does an apple taste like an orange? Besides none of those laws are in the constitution. Nice try on twisting things around, but you are not smarter than a 5th grade redneck.

I can not imagine anything more terrifying than this country with a dictator at the wheel. Armed public prevent such from ever being a possibility much like a balance of powers

I think the guy used a gun for fun because the device at his apartment could have been used and would have killed many more people. He could have just bombed it.. o and by the way making bombs is illegal yet he still had them??

Taking away guns from legal owners..only makes it worst..then only illegal owners have weapons.

Its like the Little league baseball players...playing against the major league baseball players in a game!

Illegal owners have them now..whats going to stop them later?

Yes I can understand this fruitcake was legal..but changing the laws will make it one sided then.

Rather have 50 legal fruitcakes with weapons..then illegal ones having weapons...at least we can track them this way.

The sale of an assault weapon should be banned..who needs those..not used for hunting..oh target practice..like that's needed?

I hunt galore and I'm only 25 miles away from NYC hunting sometimes.

@CarterGlass Do you even know the Batman stroyline? And isn't it always convenient to blame the media, whether movies, video games, comics, etc. for these events?

Mike, the 2nd amendment tells you why you need an assault weapon. It is not for hunting.

Truth_Hurts: Kudo's for trying to be reasonable.

But history in the subject proves that the anti's will ALWAYS over reach for total registration and ultimately total banning.

Bloomberg is an excellent example for my family. My late father acquired two pearl handled luger s in WW2, where fought. He moved from Washington State to New York. New York had a drive to register your weapons. And being law abiding he did so. They did return them to him . But with leaded barrels.

50 round mag? 30 round mag? I was brought up where accuracy counts not spray & pray.

But nonsensical laws, adopted by people with absolutely no knowledge in firearms , impedes any compromise.

Obama , Is smart not to jump into this. I'm a progressive, working class, Democrat. I'm not happy over Afghanistan, his nafta clones, or immigration bs taking US jobs. This could be the straw that breaks for many. And he knows it.

By the way: Your last assault weapon ban? Whats the difference between a semi- auto 223 Ruger W/ wood stock & a assault weapon?? Answer= the stock. a collapsible stock made weapon a assault weapon.

Charlie you´re right! We need massive demonstrations like million man marches in favor of strict gun control.We must confront the violent thugs of the NRA.What are they going to do ? shoot us? That will show us what they are made of! You accuse them of being terrorists and they´ll prove it by killing you! Some game they´ve got! I´m going to start the National Cyanide Assn and the Posionous Snake Fondation.Everyone must have them at home.As ,long as you don´t drink the cyanide it´s safe.As long as you don´t pet the snake it´s safe.Guns fit in the same category!

Charlie's an idiot and should be treated as such.

Romney's praying that Obama listens to people like Mike, Charlie & Bart before the election. It would make him a shoe in. Money in foreign countries regardless.

Scar you´re scary! : I hope I don´t meet you in a bar after you´ve had a few drinks.With your ideas I plan to stay away from you.I think you could shoot me..not in self defense.but because your 45 colt just might be handy in your pocket...And for cmdr358 you´re the idiot if you support unlimted access to guns. And dangerous as well!

Bart those are unreasonable fears to walk around with, stress can kill you know, so if I were you I wouldn't worry about it. By the way colt 45's are not as easy to conceal compared to the many small semi-auto handguns on the market today. Most people packing colt revolvers don't stick them in their pocket, they wear them out in the open so you know they are strapped.

This is cruel and despicable act and the perpetrator should be punished to the full extent of the law. Hopefully they have death penalty in Colorado.

You can not legislate to prevent crazy people doing despicable acts. Unless you identify them before hand. In order to identify them you need to invade the privacy of everybody and to trample on everybody's rights.
We are becoming more obsessed with personal safety. We are willing to give up our rights just to feel a little bit safer. There are plenty of examples, look around you.
After a while we will be very safe, with no rights, with a government that takes care of our "safety". This is scarier than few crazy people doing despicable acts.
We will leave in a "childproof" house, with somebody telling us what is safe and what not, watching our every step to make sure that we are "safe".
Hope this is not the world that your want to live in. Think about it!

We need to have law that punish death with death (especially in this clear cut case). But thanks to some of our concerned citizens, the rights of crazy people would be protected and murderers will get away with soft sentences. The same people have no problem though to restrict my rights, law abiding citizen. This guy may end up in an institution and that's that. But you know what, let's take revenge on these gun lovers. I'm sorry that you guys don't see the twisted reasoning here.

God help us all!

We need "sin" taxes on all guns and ammunition; make them high enough and people will think twice before buying any. Unreasonable??? They tax cigarettes to the extreme... yet have lower taxes on alcohol and firearms. Thousands are injured and killed every year because of drunk driving and the misuse of guns, it is not a theory it is a fact. Yet, because of medical theories cigarettes are taxed to the extreme and the tax money is used by the government for just about everything except medical bills of uninsured smokers and smoking cessation programs. Let the gun manufacturers and alcohol distilleries pay comparable taxes for all the grief their products inflict.

Truth hurts. These drum you are talking about are not "clips" that goes for almost all rifles. There are rifles around that use clips but for the most part they use magazines.

Bart Martin----Why does Scar scare you. What he said is true and you are probably safer with him around then not. Where did you get the idea that the cmdr supports unlimited access to guns?

Charlie is an idiot, your are correct Cmdr, he knows nothing about the NRA!

Thank you car31jou: Bart, surprise you to know, I don't carry a weapon around. Mine are in my home. My kids are 20 something, so their not quite as locked up as they were before. But, then again, I'm a archer too, knife/sword collector. Guess what, all above applies to my sister as well. A USMC raised family. USMC/ Police trained here

Sorry, I do not fit into your definition of Democrat. Buy the way Bart, I'd love to buy a National Match 45. But the economy rotts so bad, I could not afford one. It would punch big holes through paper not you.

But, If you want to fear me?? Fear that enough people like you, cause me , and people like me, to hold their nose's hard enough, and vote for Romney.

Blonde , not many people know it in this day and age but fire arms , ammunition and many sporting goods used in other sports such as fishing , archery , camping and the like are already taxed under the Pittman -Robinson act from the earl;y 1900s . the taxes go to pay for wildlands and public acsess as well as habitate and space for wildlife . and that is all the taxes can be used for according to the act . If not for the P_R act , we wouldnt have the wetlands , wildlife fisheries habitate that we do , the proceeds from the P_R act in just a single year , is many times more than all the sierra club type organizations and philanthropific donations recieved in all those organizations combined histories ever provided .

that act was also called for by the very people who use the guns and the sporting goods mentioned as a way of preserving both the wildlife , and the habitate so that it could NOT be exploited and all made private.

So 200 people witnessed this massacre, 12 died, and 58 were wounded and no one did anything to stop this guy? Why are Americans so afraid to fight anymore? Out of all the attacks we've had, the most recent display of anyone fighting back for their lives was flight 93 on 9/11. What has society done to us to make us feel so safe we've given up our instinct to survive? What entitles us to be so disinterested in our own safety?

On the other hand, what has society deteriorated into where we have our own kind hunting us like a wolf hunts sheep? Our morals have dwindled to nothing, our educational system is a dumping ground, and all we can do is bicker about how many rounds of ammo a rifle magazine should hold?

How about addressing the real issues here. The America we read about in our history books is no more. Research how many colleges your state has built versus how many prisons. We're growing a nation of fear and blame instead of doing what's right. I can't tell you how sad this is to see on every level imaginable.

Truth_Hurts-3416308===So 50 round clips would be alright with you? These guns didn't shoot these poor innocent people a sick person did. People are the criminals not the guns. Care for the injured and their families and don't push this off on gun control.

If this guy really needed a gun he could have gotten one anywhere. Guns have been floating around this country since explorers first found this continent. They were needed back then and they are still needed.

The NRA is a terrorist organization and should be treated as such.

Why? What makes you say that? Following YOUR logic, then ALL law abiding NRA members are terrorists then. Run and hide. Are you posting from under your mommy's bed?

Yeah, as you may have guessed I own handguns ( 2 .40 Glocks, a Model 27 and Model 23; very much like one of the firearms this shooter Holmes had in the movie theater) and also a pair of .22's (Taurus and a Walter), which my wife likes to shoot. We are conscientious owners, keep them locked up, and don't try to push gun ownership on ANYONE. It's a personal decision. A personal choice. And there are 140-plus million of us.

For the record, I'm NOT a member of the NRA, but seeing posts from people like you, I now have good mind to join.

I'm just wondering - how many of you have given thought to the "technical" details of the Colorado Movie Massacre? By "technical" I mean, how does a 24 year old college student finance 15-20K worth of weaponry, ammunition, chemicals and body armour? Furthermore, why is the Fed keeping this kid in isolation? AND why did the kid appear to be so drugged out of his mind that he couldn't even put together a coherent thought? ALSO, how does a neuroscience student manage to rig explosives so complicated that it takes well trained bomb squads two days to disarm them?

Who bank-rolled him? Who TRAINED him? And who was the person that several witnesses say sat in the front row, and got up with his phone and went to stand by the exit door just minutes before Holmes walked in thru that same exit door?

One more thing, his high school friends have stated that the kid was so intelligent that he could just show up in class, never take a note, and ace his exams with A's. He was apparently intelligent enough to get grants to study neuroscience, and yet, one of his professors at UC stated he was a mediocre student. Sorry folks, but something here just isn't adding up!

Why is it that when there is a violent shooting (Virginia Tech, Arizona, Colorodo, etc...), Republicans and Gun Advocates are so quick to say, "Oh, that was the work of one, deranged individual...he doesn't represent all normal, law-abiding gun owners."

And yet, when 1 muslim extremist commits an act of terrorism, the same Republicans are calling for an American invasion of the Middle East and trying to ban Sharia Law?

It's seems like such an obvious double-standard.

Regarding Constitutionality...I vividly recall that during W's reign, they would sequester protesters into areas set up specifically for them to voice their opinion, away from the main stage. These were called "Free Speech Zones".

How about we set up safe, sequestered areas for gun owners to go and practice their 2nd Amendment Rights...We can call them, "Shooting Ranges".

MovedWestSo 200 people witnessed this massacre, 12 died, and 58 were wounded and no one did anything to stop this guy? Why are Americans so afraid to fight anymore? Out of all the attacks we've had, the most recent display of anyone fighting back for their lives was flight 93 on 9/11. What has society done to us to make us feel so safe we've given up our instinct to survive?

Fort Hood shooting November 5th 2009.

Army reserve Captain John Gaffaney attempted to stop Hasan by charging him, but was mortally wounded before he could reach him.[21] Civilian physician assistant Michael Cahill also tried to charge Hasan with a chair, but was shot and killed.[22] Army reserve Specialist Logan Burnette tried to stop Hasan by throwing a folding table at him, but he was shot in the left hip, fell down, and crawled to a nearby cubicle.[23

Bluecat 55

So, by the logic portrayed here, why have laws against possession of cocaine, heroin, etc...criminals can get it anyway....

Because cocaine, heroin, etc are actually bad for you, while guns are not. That's why. Don't fear guns, not honest gun owners, as they use their guns for self-defense, target practice, and hunting (some of them, not all). Fear the criminal who owns a gun, just as you would fear a drunk driver (or someone who would intentionally try to hit you with his car).

thepunisher-2054749

"By the logic of this thread, why have laws at all? I mean, making murder illegal doesn't prevent all murders, and outlawing nuclear weapons doesn't necessarily stop people from building them."

Same answer. Guns are not bad, it is the criminals who are.

With anti-guns laws only criminals will have guns.

In my opinion, the 100 Round drum magazine the shooter had for the AR-15 is useless for the average Tom, Dick, and Harry that legally own an AR15 rifle. At best, it's a pointless novelty gun add-on, but a deadly one in the wrong hands. I can't think of any good purpose to own that large a magazine and outlawing it would not hurt my feelings.

"In my opinion, the 100 Round drum magazine the shooter had for the AR-15 is useless for the average Tom, Dick, and Harry that legally own an AR15 rifle"

It turns out that it was useless to this shooter too...it jammed.

That doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to buy one if I want one - I don't need someone else to be the final arbiter of what I may find utilitarian, I'm quite capable of making that decision myself, tyvm.

I can think of quite a few reasons to own large magazines.

First, and foremost - the reason our nation's Founding Fathers added The Right to Keep and Bare Arms to the Constitution:

These wise men, far wiser than any to hold the offices they created, recognized that governments of men, by men, were and are, vulnerable to the tyranny of mankind. Should the day ever come that our own military is turned against the civilian populace, we must have a means to resist, to fight back, and overthrow that corrupted government. And they realized this could not be accomplished by means of a strongly worded letter, or even more strongly worded letter.

They knew, because many of them had paid the price, that the price of Freedom is paid in the Blood of Armed men and women, and the tears of those they leave behind. These Honorable Few placed their lives on the line, to battle a corrupt England and win our Freedom. How could they possibly allow the same to happen here?

So there is just one such use for high capacity magazines.

Here's another:

I absolutely love to shoot. I can easily spend an entire day at the range, and have. I can easily empty 2000 rounds or more in a day, and I have. There is something very rewarding about finding that "perfect spot", where body, mind and weapon act as one, and round after round end up exactly where you wanted them.

Then the gun goes "click". The magazine is empty and needs reloaded or at the very least swapped for a full magazine. And that's all it takes to throw that off, and you may not get that back again.

But I'm not so inflexible to say I don't the average Joe would have need of such extended magazines, so I would have no issue restricting their sales, just like handguns.

"Should the day ever come that our own military is turned against the civilian populace, we must have a means to resist, to fight back, and overthrow that corrupted government."

Do you really think any weapon you could jam into your house is going to protect you from the United States Military? If they wanted to overtake this country, they could within a matter of minutes - unless you wanted to start allowing people to procure military grade weapons.

Your AR-15 and 10,000 rounds of ammo would be humourous to our new found enemy.

Maybe its not the guns being purchased, but maybe its the amount of ammo in the very little time frame should have raised a red flag somewhere.

So how many rounds of ammunition is enough?

Even though I agree that 100 round drum mags are "unnecessary", here's the problem...

So we agree that, say , anything over 50 rounds capacity is illegal.

Do you REALLY think the anti-gun liberals will stop there? It will open the floodgates...

Second, anyone that trains with their self-defense weapons (and they should), can effect a magazine change- pistol, or rifle- in less than two seconds.

So, how much effect does "banning" 100 round mags have?

It somehow is eternally lost on the liberal nutjobs that those states/locales with the STRICTEST gun laws, have the highest violent crime and murder rates...

Chicago...

Baltimore...

Gimme a break. If there were armed citizens in that theatre, lives MAY have been saved, and the shooter might be where he belongs...

The massacres are going to continue as long as guns are easily available The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with individual ownership of guns.If it does.Repeal it.This is a nationall health emergency.The pyschos are going beserk with the easy access.And even if only 10% of the U.S is pyscho that ´s 35 million people WE all live in Aurora.It´s not over there .It´s not just an aberration.It´s everywhere. If there is no VERY strict gun control.I´ll be seeing you all again at the next massacre!

The reasons I have guns. Put, food on the table,protect my family if our Gov falls, There are all kinds of good reasons to have a GOOD WEAPON. Guns have been in my family for years and I know of no one killing anyone, I'm wrong they did kill someone when my brother and I went to Vietnam him in the 1st Div me in the 173 Inf.

This guy had a clean record except for a minor traffic ticket (speeding or parking, I can't remember), the guns and ammo were purchased legally by an adult. The background check (s) were done and the transaction(s) were completed. None of our laws were broken. I heard he was described as "a weird honors student". Weird does not equal mentally ill, which in this case would have been the only thing to prevent the purchases from going through.

The Bugatti Veyron is an 8-litre, mid engine grand touring car. The Super Sport version is the fastest road-legal production car in the world with a top speed of 267mph and was designed and developed by the Volkswagen Group.

Should this car be banned?

No legitimate purpose right?

It dismays me that all the focus is always on the crazies that do something horrible like this. It would not matter whether there was a gun law change or not. There will ALWAYS be something somehow when someone wants to. Just in the news today about someone who's infected "dozens" with Hep C which is fatal more than 75% of the time. Or the person that plows their car through a crowd of people. They would have still done something somehow when the evil of the heart is there. Hell he rigged his apt with explosives. He could have just as easily tossed in some IED devices and never used a gun. Fact is you cant stop it.
I am a CCW holder, and thankfully have not had to use it. But there have been times when you just don't know. Every single person I know that has a carry permit, takes it seriously, goes to the range to practice, etc. I generally and not worried about needing my gun while in a place of business, it's always coming and going from the parking lot that's usually the problem.
Who will ever know. The two theatres in my area dont have no guns displayed. There are usually always police there, and almost always carry. Some will disagree, but I'll never be convinced, that had there been someone there that was armed, he would not have gotten as far as he did. As indicated by the bravery of some there, I think most would have given their life if they could have helped stop it and prevented the killings.

I'd rather have a gun in my hand than a cop on the phone.

@Ryan : LOL AR-15? Not in my collection. Nothing so mundane for me. I'm torn between my Dragunov Tigr and PSG1A1. Both are beautifully preforming, spot on accurate, and rock solid. And as former military myself, keeping up with tactics isn't that big a deal.

Now, I fully appriciate your faith in our military, but... we can't even secure a bassakward nation like Afghanistan. There's no way in hell we could "conquor" our own people, not with the troops we have, not with 600,000 more.

a

Let me guess, you're the guy that watches people pee and you're afraid you're going to lose your job if marijuana becomes more legalized?

VERY good point, dk07.

I have a better idea leave the stoners alone, your points are baseless drivel.

Marijuana doesn't trigger any underlying mental illness, if you're a nut you'll be a nut on anything.

I failed to see any VERY good points in dk07 attack on marijuana, in fact I failed to see any valid points at all.

Lets blame a harmless plant and make it more illegal and give everyone rocket launchers, thats the solution for the gun nuts. No wonder this country is so f'ed up.

To Baddog, No I'm the mother who has seen first hand how marijuana profoundly changed my 17 year old son, not to mention 2 of his friends who were diagnosed bipolar after becoming regular users. In all cases, the doctors suspected marijuana use of triggering underlying mental illness. It's not as harmless as some would like to believe, and for a young mind, it can be a little like playing russian roulette. And don't even get me started on all the lazy, apathetic adult stoners that I've encountered in my life that think there's no harm in getting high, while escaping the responsibilities of real life, like raising kids, holding down a job, and being a good husband or wife.

somehow I think this tragedy would have happened with or without pot. I would be more likely to blame folks who know that severe mental disorders run in their families and still have children.

DK, blame your parenting skills, not a plant.

This guy seems to have been infactuated with super heros and villains. More so with the villains. Without knowing the details, it looks like he took on the personnality af the Joker. Sad, really sad.

Not much has been reported, but does anyone realize that the mass shootings this country has seen over the past decade or so have been by people under 25 years of age? What is causing this? The affects of bullying? Maybe, but I don't think so. Bullying has gone on as long as kids have been kids. You never heard of mass shootings a generation and more ago. These mass shootings are relatively new to our society. So what has changed? Think about this... the morales of society influenced by violent video games, violant TV shows and movies. Adolecents are beginning to live the actions they see in the games and movies. I'm against sensorship by the government, but maybe some sensorship is needed for the video games and movies. The morales of this country have been on a constant slide since sensorship of our TV programs was outlawed in the 60's/70's. No one can convence me that it hasn't had an affect on society as a whole. Especially the young whose minds are like sponges during the developmental stages of their lives.

dko, many prescription drugs have waaay worse side effects and addictive properties than marijuana.

So, because Marijuana 'might' have contributed to this disaster and your son became a pot-head and had an underlying mental illness that pot 'might' have helped reveal itself you blame pot and think that no one should be able to use it? By that logic, then we should restrict/eliminate all gun sales because of the actions of a few people...right?

So this thread is on blamming something, someone, etc......well when you have the need to start blaming other things, you fail to see the real cause. In this case mental illness.

"These mass shootings are relatively new to our society."

Not really, just google mass shootings and you'll find that it's not isolated to the last decade. But the speed at which events are reported have increase in the last couple of decades.

And don't even get me started on all the lazy, apathetic adult stoners that I've encountered in my life that think there's no harm in getting high,

ANd dont get me started on what an uneducated, delusional picee of work you are (chuckle). And what a myopic view you hold

Admitted stoner here...3 decades worth. Got good grades, a college degree, got a great job, moved up in my career path, I have a lovely spouse and I have no debt. I contibute to my community and donate regulary to charity. So much for your 'stoners are harming themselves' BS.

Tell me though....as a taxpayer, do you fel its right to jail all pot smokers (about 70 Million of us now) at taxpayer expense @ $45,000 a year to incarerate them? While we write drunk drivers a ticket and keep letting them drive and kill?

How many people die from pot each year? Answer: ZERO

Legalization is almost here. And its going to happen. Every year initiatives in each state get closer and closer to being over 50% voter approved, They already are in 6 States.

@DK07 - I guarantee you that I, as a life long pot smoker, make more money than you, am smarter than you, work harder than you, and enjoy life a hell of a lot more than you. Sounds like your problem is a combination of bad genetics and poor parenting skills that resulted in your son's 'problem'.

Back to the story .This is not about marijuana.It´s about guns that are as deadly as cyanide,nerve gas,and other deadly substances,They in themselves may sit there .and do nothing as long as you don´t open the bottle or canister.But with the millions of violent loose canons in the U.S the genie is let out of the bottle much more than the lives that are saved by having a gun.More guns= equals more deaths. VERY stricy gun control now.!! Or maybe if the whole theater was armed there would be a hundreds of people dead from shooting at each other.Anyway see you after the next massacres..!!

i bet he is on something! You don't go from top of the class to failing without some help or a brain tumor.

AVG. 1.88 million reported legal justified defensive use of firearms in USA every year. That is a lot of lives saved. Which trade off are you referring to?

Nathan - On the other hand, I often travel to other countries where guns are banned to the average citizen and their crime rates and drug cartels are rampant. Brazil and Mexico are perfect examples where the citizenry are at the mercy of government or criminals (or often are both) and cannot fend for themselves. We could definitely use more profound background checks for licencing gun owners, but disarming the population like other countries have tried doing is a recipe for disaster.

or over 5,000 "legal justified defensive uses" per day? BS, sounds like Foxygen facts at work.

DMo, don't you know? The gun owners use their guns to protect themselves, then do not report the incident to police because they fear being harrassed for carrying a gun around. Five thousand times every single day.

Yeah, I don't buy it, either.

I do not like fox news. You can look it up. Further If you really want relevant information that pertains to yourself you should explore your local government resources. I welcome your questioning nature we should question everything without bias.

A national survey conducted in 1994 by the Police Foundation and sponsored by the National Institute of Justice almost exactly confirmed the estimates from the National Self-Defense Survey. This survey's person-based estimate was that 1.44% of the adult population had used a gun for protection against a person in the previous year, implying 2.73 million defensive gun users. These results were well within sampling error of the corresponding 1.33% and 2.55 million estimates produced by the National Self-Defense Survey.

Guns and Self-Defense
by Gary Kleck, Ph.D.

"Yes, it means restricting the freedom"

Well there are plenty of countries that restricts freedom too. You can have your pick. Freedom comes with responsibilities, but I guess people like you don't want to be responsible and pass it on to the government.

Hey nathan do you remember studying prohibition in school? Did you go to school? And if so did they manage to instill any training in independent and critical thinking? Think about how well prohibition worked out and if you can't remember then go do some research and come back with some valid points and maybe an enlightened opinion.

Tdub, what do you think the murder rate is where alcohol is used as a weapon (and not counting setting someone on fire)? See maybe a tiny difference between booze and guns now?

thepunisher, there are plenty of countries with freedom comparable to the U.S. but with much less violence.

gtouch, a survey is a specious basis to draw sound statistical conclusions from. It relies on self reported events, which may or may not be accurate, and on the perception of threat, which again may or may not be accurate. Moreover, it tells you nothing of how many defensive gun uses were triggered by prior offensive gun uses, which would be germane to the conversation.

Murder rates in industialized, first world, Western nations (murders/100,000 people)

Austria: 0.56

Norway: 0.68

Spain: 0.72

Germany: 0.84

Denmark: 0.85

Netherlands: 0.87

Italy: 0.87

Sweden: 0.97

Poland: 1.10

Australia: 1.16

U.K.: 1.23

Ireland: 1.30

Canada: 1.62

Czech Republic: 1.67

New Zealand: 1.76

Finland: 2.1

U.S.A.: 4.8

Guns are used in about three fifths of all murders in the United States. It seems very likely that the prevalence of guns and their easy availability participates in our elevated national murder rate. If we can accept that, then we can have a debate over the relative values of life and freedom, over just how much liberty we might be willing to collectively sacrifice so that an innocent six year old in a movie theatre doesn't have the concept of liberty rendered entireley moot for herself because a madman decided to shoot up the place. Reasonable people have grounds here to disagree, but not over the absurd NRA promoted notion that a proliferation of guns makes us a safer society.

Exactly right. I stay away from those cities specifically because I cannot travel to them with my guns in tote. As the saying goes:

When seconds count, the cops are only minitues away....

And how is Colorado doing with it's lax gun laws?

Truth Hurts -- Exactly right. I stay away from those cities specifically because I cannot travel to them with my guns in tote.

So ... I guess those laws are doing some good after all.

Jane80909

And how is Colorado doing with it's lax gun laws?

A whole lot better than those cities mentioned if you want to comapre statistics. But nope, emotional reactions is what morons resort to when they have no facts.

Never see the nuts walk into a police station and start shooting, wonder why? Oh yea everyone there has a gun and will shoot back. Ever wonder where all the attacks take place, in gun free zones, example Columbine, Virginia Tech and this past Colorado Shooting the theater policy is to ban guns. Gun free zones announce no one here will be able to stop you. If logic tells you the evil gun is the root cause of these shooting, then that same logic would lead you to ban cars, planes, boats and electricity. Unabridged 2nd Amendment it protects the rest.

In all of these blogs, there are always people who chime in and demonize Arizona. Why? because our government picked Arizona to purchase and smuggle guns into mexico using our tax dollars. And of course they watch liberal media and believe all they hear. In truth, nearly all, if not all of the weapons purchased for the fast and furious fiasco were reported to the ATF as suspiciouse sales. But since the ATF was purchasing them the reports went no where. We will likely never know what the government was intending, It certainly was not to track the weapons, none of which had a tracking device installed. You can bet whatever they were intending was not good. Thank God for the whistleblower. This tragedy in CO. is what it is, Horrible. Terrorists do more damage and kill more people with stuff purchased at hardware stores and grocery stores. But that is no comfort to those who are hurting. I did read something in another blog that makes sense. They said, When you remove God, your left with hell.

George. You have some backwards logic...

So ... I guess those laws are doing some good after all.

Depends what you consider good. Those laws work if your objective is to allow illegal gun owners rule the communities...which they do apparently. Chicago recently had a slew of 40-50 murders in a single weekend! Congratulations...that's good in your book...

The semi auto rifle platform is the modern rifle. Hunting applications are discovered everyday. And its defensive use goes without saying.

i have that same question. wondering if one of the gun enthusiasts on here could answer it.

In feral hog country, if you are going to make a significant dent in the population, you need a semi-automatic.

I use my 556 chambered rifles for the following reasons:

• Regularly: Target shooting hobby/competitions
• Regularly: Hunting
• Emergency: Home defense and protection
• Emergency: Hurricane/Disaster aftermath protection

My motto is, "Better safe than sorry."

where I live about 20% of the deer harvested is with an ar 15 also it is a varment rifle as well as competitive events. this rifle is relativity light weigh handles well and has a flat trajectory making it ideal for small targets. while it has the look of an assault rifle it utilizes an action nearly identical to other semi autos. Also this rifle comes in a variety of calibers and once you own one you can buy the upper portion which is the chamber bolt and barrel and interchange it on the lower assy which has the trigger handgrips and stock making it a versatile gun I saw a while back that they were even working on a cross bow upper section i dont know the status of that

hs321, need? or it comes in handy?

"need? or it comes in handy?"...In this case, a distinction without a difference.

I personally don't care for the AR, but it makes a fantastic varmint rifle. It does have legitimate uses. And whether you like it or not, one of those legitimate uses is punching holes in paper at a shooting range.

I have stood in the crematorium at Dachau, and peered into the ovens where the dead were cremated. I've felt the pure evil there. Those unfortunate souls were systematically disarmed by a govt intent on total control, and aided by the same ignorant mentality that would disarm law abiding citizens today. It was a prerequisite to any of the atrocities happening. Our own govt has already murdered people at Waco, and murdered people at Ruby Ridge, and systematically confiscated guns after the Katrina disaster. Even if the Supreme Court hadn't affirmed our individual right to bear arms, I'd have never given mine up. Colorado was caused by a nutjob who just as easily could have set off a bomb under twenty fifty five gallon drums of gas. Nothing you can do to stop that. But you can stop a lot of gun violence, just by enforcing the gun laws on the books... which Liberals seem to have an aversion to... why is that?

No democracy has lasted forever. We see dictators take over other countries every day. Then they take away the citizens' weapons. Then they start eliminating the ones with opposing views and rounding up families and wiping them all out. That is why we need high capacity clip semiautomatic weapons. You can hunt with them but more importantly you can stop tyrrany with them or die a free individual. As long as the citizenry is armed, the government has to worry about this. The second amendment is not about hunting. It is about protecting freedom and liberty and your family. Cite one sentence in the Constitution that state that "...the right to squirrel hunt and to shoot targets...". The liberal and forgetful new media fails to understand this.

Wake up I have an AR that I built myself that i carry on my property here when i go out and check the livestock and fence line , reason i carry that is it is what i was trained with in the military , and i know exactly how it functions and how to if need be fix something that goes wrong . i could carry a ruger Mini 14 i have one but the AR because of familiarity is the first choice , why carry it? well small and large predators like my livestock , the round the AR uses works just fine for what i do use it for such as Coyotes , the occasional skunk , feral dogs and the such . if a larger predator is about , at least the noise will make them tend to leave the area which i tend to do soon after that as well. I could carry a different gun in a different cal , but choose not to and a couple reasons could be expense , i could also go cheaper and carry a 22 LR , but thats not much of a dispatching round on anything larger than a feral cat .

30 round mags are perfectly justified.

Maybe you can have talk with your buddies who believe they need several assault weapons for "home" security

Well people come in all sizes so yes sometimes more than one firearm is needed. The authorities have rifles which are switchable from semi auto to auto some are 3 round bursts. Those are assault weapons.

And I for one find it completely confusing that someone can buy and stockpile all the ingredients for a successful mayhem/mass-murder spree like the one week, and no red flag is ever raised, yet back in the John Ashcroft days, Tommy Chong went to jail for selling water pipes over the internet.

Easier to mourn the dead than to have our "representatives" break their $$$$ties with their benefactors.............NRA lives on and is strong and well.......until the next mourning and the next massacre........when they will have to cough up some more $$$$$$ for their lackeys in Congress

Would have been a lot worse. Picture it: a bunch of Rambo wannabes taking poorly aimed shots in the dark and smoke at anyone they think is armed.

this argument is ridiculous and getting old.

100% criminal shooting/killing indiscriminately vs less chance of death ccw permit holder shooting discriminantly at criminal.

MDH.....are you kidding? Cops are for clean up! That p.o.s would have been down in a hurry if there were armed patrons in that theater. I have my cpl and feel 100% safe when 'ol Bessie is on me. An armed society is a polite society.

maybe, maybe not but let's say you (sheplover) in an attempt to put down this loser coward hit an unarmed civilian- like the 6-year old girl who died. Are you then ready to be held accountable? I realize you are trying to protect others but the line becomes too thin at that point...and then are you financially ready for a civil suit? (cause you know that's going to come along..)

Wake...when you are trained for a cpl license, you know exactly when and when not to take a shot. You just don't get handed a gun. You learn all about civil suits, laws, safe rooms in your home, don't speak until your lawyer is present. You have to think....gee, civil suit or death? I'll take a civil suit, thank you. I'm sorry, but I have no patience for anti-gun people. Maybe that six year old would still be alive and that scumbag would be the one with the bullet in his head...

@wakeuppeople its that accountability which lessens the possibility.

That p.o.s would have been down in a hurry if there were armed patrons in that theater.

Not likely. He was wearing full body armor. If you had taken a shot at him, you'd probably be the next victim, and anyone next to you.

MDH1949

Or one competent marksman putting a single round into the perps head, saving lives.

My husband and I are both damn good with a gun, you'd want to be behind us....or you can choose to be a victim.

I do not know why people think being shot with body armor on is not temporally incapacitating. That is a lot of energy to dissipate.

You get hit center mass with a FMJ .45 +P in 15 yards or less with body armor on, you are going to go down. Not dead down, but long enough to get control of the situation.

See, I call BS. Especially about this:

My husband and I are both damn good with a gun, you'd want to be behind us.

So you mean to say that you will shoot anything on sight? Kill a few people in the way to your goal, "just a few side casualties, oh well"? It's a dark theater, are you really that good a shot in a very little light, or possible strobe light situation? Ok, so he goes down behind a row of seats, how long till you find him exactly? fast enough for him not to recover and keep going? Will you be fast enough to prevent anything at all? an AK15 by a decent good shooter will unload 30 rounds in less than 5 seconds, thank god the stupid magazine jammed.

My point is that the cowboy attitude posts get you nowhere and it's all hot air; because when it comes to the real situation, I don't care how good you are, you will most likely flinch.

I don't know some you people think guns are important in the case of goverment tyranny, most of you be too busy grovling and kizzin the boots of the storm troopers and thanking them for "their service"

oh hold on there...'whats'...did you read my post? I know when and when NOT to take a shot. Do you know anything about guns except for "they kill". Hubby and I practice in our back yard and on ranges.. my husband was on the Marine Core pistol team and has tactical training and I have learned from him and other gun expert shooters You, my friend are poorly educated on weapons. Like I stated....go ahead and be a victim for all I care. I'm fighting for my life.

Sorry, but my point still stands. How long does it take you to decide to take the shot or not in that situation? At 6+ shots a second, every second you delay means a few dead or injured. And what if one of your family, god forbid, was one of the ones hit? will you go immediately for your gun, or tend to your loved one? What if you were the one hit? Are you still going to be in a condition to shoot accurately?

Four of the people that dies were in the military forces apparently. So I bet you there was a few more people there in the military as well. I doubt that there was nobody in there without a weapon. But given the facts, that person will never come forward in order to keep the "we need more people armed" argument.

I may not have the opportunity to take a shot, is there cover? is there anyone in my line of fire past my objective?.....every situation must be assessed. But,
I don't want anyone telling me I have to be unarmed and unprotected. I hope I never have to use my weapon...but I am confidant in my ability.

I never said you should be unarmed and unprotected. Don't assume because of my statements that I am against the second amendment altogether. I just see no need whatsoever for any kind of assault weapon being sold to the general public. Short of an army of zombie deer coming to eat your brain, there is no need for such weaponry in public hands.

And the idea that some people have "if someone in there had been armed..." (like you said: every situation is different), THAT kind of speculation is just drivel.

Six shots a second? I seriously doubt dude could shoot that fast.

And basically you are saying it's better to not fight and just let the people die. If someone had shot at him and stopped him at two killed, yet also killed one themselves, that's not better than having twelve killed? Three is much worse than twelve? I don't understand.

I'm guessing also that if he had used anything but firearms the people would be less dead and you would be less sad? He obviously knew about making bombs. If he had let a bomb off in there and killed who knows how many, they would be less dead? There may be less of their remains, but they are no less dead than being killed by gunfire.

As far as anyone armed, the place banned firearms. Law abiding citizens follow the law. That law helped the law-breaker out.

No Ground Chuk, you missed the point.

My point is that anyone saying that if there had been armed people in there, they could have taken him down is a FOS statement made by people that think themselves Supermen cause they own a gun. Sure it is easy to say that because you were not there.

This was a dark theater, people though he was a stunt for the opening of the movie, he threw a canister of tear gas, you have 150+ people panicking around you and running, some ran out the exit the shooter came in so they were behind him. How in the hell are you going to get a clear shot at him? Are you going to shoot indiscriminately and shoot a few more people in the process? What if more people were armed and hear the firing coming from your position... what's to stop them from assuming you are a second shooter given the conditions?

So what's your stance? that the underage kids at Columbine should have all been armed too?

Whats ina Name - I both agree and disagree with you.

just see no need whatsoever for any kind of assault weapon being sold to the general public.

Its too late now to reverse selling guns like the AR15 to the public. Gangs and criminals have those kinds of guns too and if you need to match them with equal force for some reason...a pistol just doesn't always reach.

What if more people were armed and hear the firing coming from your position... what's to stop them from assuming you are a second shooter given the conditions?

I agree with you. I go pretty much everywhere I legally can with my CCW, including movies, and I can't say I would have been able to fire my weapon effectively at that shooter with all that was happening and his load of armor. The tactical circumstances would have to have been really advantageous for me to engage him, rather than hide and look for a tactical advantage once I got my bearings straight of the situation. But that may not have been possible either. If other less skilled and trained CCW people had started firing...it could have been even more disastrous.

A waiting time on the purchase of semi-automatics could have made a difference. So could reporting to the FBI someone that buys a ridiculous amount of rounds AND body armor.

Could have ? doubtful since they are saying this had been planned over several months , and not once in those several months did the perp do anything that would have caused him to be flagged on a NICS background check . yet his own mother knew it was her son , when it happened , what about her responsability for the welfare of her child, even if he was a legal adult , when did SHE report any suspisions that could have possably cause this person to be flagged so the system wouldnt have allowed him to purchase the guns ?

Whatever, more people are killed in car accidents everyday than will ever be shot by a gun in a year !!!

OUTLAW CARS !

AVG 1.88 million reported justified legal defensive use of firearms in USA every year. 1.88 million law abiding lives unharmed in USA every year. We all have a preference but truth dictates logic in the real world.

What an incredibly stupid argument. If guns got as much usage as road vehicles the dead and wounded would be stacked like cordwood. When you compare accident rates you *have* to look to usage.

I tell you what: for guns and vehicles, require:

• Competence tests to get a usage license (to be renewed every 5 - 10yrs)...restricting usage to those classes of for which one has shown competence.
• A record all vehicles/guns (VIN/Serial #-firing "DNA") by registering initial manufacture/import and all transfers of ownership
• Annual/biannual registration
• Liability insurance
• Demerit system on license for rule infringements

And in the same way that car manufacturers add safety features to cars, firearms manufacturers can make their products safer.

You are incorrect. there are regulations, the problem is the criminals don't abide by them.

Hum, there sure seems to be a lot of restrictions, licensing, and registrations going on for supposedly having none..... Or is it that if the amount of these is not what you consider the proper amount then it equals 0?

Oh, and by the way every, gun sold is logged by serial number. When the manufacturer sells a gun to a distributor, it's logged by serial number and involved parties. When the manufacturer sells a gun to a dealer it's logged by serial number and the involved parties - and when the dealer sells a gun to you it's logged by serial number and the involved parties and you go through some sort of background check. The authorities can step track down the original owner pretty quickly.

Demerit system on license for rule infringements

How many demmerits for manslaughter?

On an average day, Americans take 1.1 billion car trips. That makes 401.5 billion successful trips a year. Number of fatalities per year... lets say 40000 (more than current average). So that is 1 fatality per every 10 million justified trips taken.

1.88 million gun uses of self defense per year (your number). Lets be generous and say 11000 homicides per year (it is actually a little more). So that is 1 fatality for every 171 justified uses.

Cars are looking pretty safe if you ask me; guns... not so much.

Guns inherently operate in riskier environments.

Then why are people comparing guns to cars if they are not equal?

I didnt you did.

See 12.1; also 14.2; and 23.5

And it's not only in this thread

Ownedbyfew

Guns inherently operate in riskier environments.

Not sure if you aware of it or not, but guns are inaniment objects, and as a result require living beings to operate them. They're very much like your PC's keyboard, i.e. if left alone, nothing happens.

I hope you did not text your message while driving your 2 ton vehicle down a public road?

And to all of the Anti-Gun activist and possible morons out there speaking out their arses..... if you believe that tougher gun laws are necessary as a direct result of the CO victims that died and were injured,.... Do you also support Anti-Homosexual legislation as a direct result of the victims and familes affected by the actions of Jerry Sandusky?

@ Duphas Get the criminals to leave the guns alone. We want the same thing.

Risky behavior is avoidable. Risk is avoidable and manageable up to a point of randomness.

I keep hearing Cons compare guns to cars. And they regurgitate it over and over and think it is a legitimate argument. LMAO! Its embarrassing hearing idiots say something they think is smart and logical when in fact it is dumb as sh*t. Its funny as hell how they come across smug too. HAHA

I just want to tell guys like "Sick of it" up there in the thread this:

"Our Government made it so that you have to be a certain age, have insurance, drive a restricted speed and if you dont follow these laws then you will face punishment by the police. And by the way, YOU CANT BUY A TANK AND DRIVE IT DOWN THE STREET!! So dont sit here and compare me driving to work and the right for any psychopath to buy an AR-15! Do you know what VW stands for? Volkswagen-They make cars for driving. Do you know what AR-15 stands for? ASSAULT RIFLE-ITS FOR ASSAULTING. YOUR ARGUMENT IS SH*T AND YOU ARE STUPID"

Richard, where in the Bill of Rights does it specifically say your right to drive a car shall not be infringed? Please point that out.

As far as an assault weapon, he didn't have one. He had a semi-automatic rifle. AR in AR-15 does NOT stand for Assault Rifle. Do you know who made the first AR?

Richard , actually the AR in AR -15 stands for armalite rifle , the company that eugene stoner worked for when he designed and developed the AR-15/m-16 platform . And yes you can legally buy tanks on the surplus market , and as long as they are road legal for the state you live in , if you can afford one , you CAN drive one .

Firearms are a irreplaceable defensive tool in the hands of the law abiding citizen. Where is the brotherhood amongst the law abiding ? You are turning on your own. Another example of how society has forgot its only friend is itself. We are not enemies as much as caring neighbors.

Firearms are a irreplaceable defensive tool in the hands of the law abiding citizen. Where is the brotherhood amongst the law abiding ? You are turning on your own

So, non-gun owners are the enemy then? Traitors, to be gunned down by 2nd Ammendment remedies? I thought having guns wasn't for the pruposes of exerting power over others...oh well.

@ Lany -

So, non-gun owners are the enemy then? Traitors, to be gunned down by 2nd Ammendment remedies?

Strangely, I didn't see those comments mentioned anywhere in his post. Would you like to point them out to me?

Just an anti-gun whackjob... don't look for logic there..... he'd just hate it if someone saved his life with a firearm... he'd rather die... ha ha ha

@ Fed up a old saying =You know when the crazy town folk next door come running over the hill to save your butt you sure are thankful they are crazy.

I think once someone is prescribed mental health enhancement drugs that should be a sign of being potentially dangerous due to the drugs numbing of reality. And quite possibly the user not being realistic in approach to problem solving.

rightthewrong - Since we are talking about the Bill of Rights then according to your logic people should need a psychological test before they can use the right to free speech. And a psychological test before they can practice freedom of religion. Sorry but does not compute.

And how about a psychological test before getting a license to drive since more people are killed by cars then guns.

I'd go for a psych test and an IRS check to vote... if you didn't pay taxes last year, you don't get to say how it's spent this year.... ha... let's just subscribe to the Liberal "if one single person is affected"... well stupid people and deadbeats voting has a huge negative effect on all of us....

Rummytub,I am confining this test to just gun owners. One doesn't have the right to yell fire in a crowded movie, nor does one get kill people and claim freedom of religion. Yes my logic is still solid.Public safety sometimes trumps individual right

A lot of people think Obama is far more liberal than he actually is. The truth is, the last true liberal we had was maybe Carter. Obama will not do anything on gun control, even after the election. If anything, I equate Obama more with Reagan. For some reason, Reagan is perceived as being more against big government than he actually was. Back then, what he did was radical, but by current standards he would barely be a Repulican. There has been a strong right-ward shift in this country over the past 30 years, and if we keep on this trajectory, W. will be considered a socialist in 30 years time.

Let's start selling suitcase bombs at wal-mart. We should be able to choose between nuclear and chemical bombs. Obviously these bombs do not detonate themselves, and if people want to kill other people, they will find the way. I can't believe this government takes away my right to own bombs! Don't tread on me!

No one is saying you cant owe a gun, just a ban on military assault riffles and large capacity clips what is the harm in that

Your point is moot, Steveo. It costs whoever makes them billions of dollars to make a nuclear weapon. It took a good chunk of our GDP to build our first atomic bomb. So Bill Gates, and maybe Warren Buffet, could get one. Thanks for playing, though.

How about regular old pipe bombs? Poor rednecks make those everyday. Same theory as your "guns don't kill People" BS thinking.

Words are cheap if you don't actually produce the "official statistics", eh rgmoon? According to Wikipedia (Based on FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2007), New York City with 8.22 million people had 6 cases of manslaughter, while Dallas with 1.24 million had 16, and Houston with 1.16 million also had 16. I thought I heard you say based on "official statistics" that gun control drove up violent crime and guns drove it down. Perhaps you could provide some unofficial statistics for your claim? Of course, there are a lot of factors that need to be carefully sorted out when analyzing numbers, but I don't believe your claims are based on any statistics, official or otherwise. And should I fantasize any careful analysis of numbers if they contradict the beliefs?

Great Britain: Less Guns = Greater Murder Rate = Fact = Parliament Revisiting Law

@Roadwarrior:

I call Bullsh*t.

UK 2010 homicide rate: 1.23 / 100,000 (255 people / sq km)
US 2010 homicide rate: 4.8 / 100,000 (32 people / sq km)

So in a country with 8 times the population density and very restrictive gun laws, the murder rate (any weapon) is 1/4 that of the US (UK has a very ethnically diverse population...so please don't use that).

I can provide citations for my numbers. I'd appreciate it if you'd provide any evidence for the assertions in your post.

Guns of this kind are outlawed at all of the public schools and colleges. Has gun crimes gone down in these places? Check the facts.

Less guns = fewer tragedies of this magnitude..Hey DOMD, really???? vehicles kill more epople everyday than guns kill people each year( from mass shootings) Problem is nutjob people liek yourself that just don;t get it! If we outlaw handguns & "assault rifles" the CRIMINALS will still get them. Gun laws DON:T WORK ! Criminals don;t follow the laws! They will use whatever is at hand to kill you, pipe bomb, shotguns, IED, whatever. People have been killing each other since the dawn of time, it won;t stop anytime soon.

Sick of it -6142540

Less guns = fewer tragedies of this magnitude..Hey DOMD, really???? vehicles kill more epople everyday than guns kill people each year( from mass shootings) Problem is nutjob people liek yourself that just don;t get it! If we outlaw handguns & "assault rifles" the CRIMINALS will still get them. Gun laws DON:T WORK ! Criminals don;t follow the laws! They will use whatever is at hand to kill you, pipe bomb, shotguns, IED, whatever. People have been killing each other since the dawn of time, it won;t stop anytime soon.

Forget gun control; we need to abolish all semiautomatic weapons & handguns, excluding Law Enforcement & the Military. You can keep your shotgun; just dont go duck hunting with Dick Cheney!

UK 2010 homicide rate: 1.23 / 100,000 (255 people / sq km)

Ironic that you would use figures from the UK for 2010.

Massacre in the Lake District: TWELVE people gunned down by rampaging cabbie, 52, who then turns weapon on himself

The Cumbria shootings was a killing spree that occurred on 2 June 2010 when a lone gunman, Derrick Bird, killed 12 people and injured 11 others

"There were no reasonable opportunities for the licensing system to have been the instrument of intervention to prevent the appalling offences subsequently committed."

The report said Bird had held a shotgun licence since 1974, when he was aged 16, and had successfully applied for renewal on a number of occasions - the latest in 2005.

In 2007 he successfully applied for a firearms certificate for a .22 rifle.

...Mr Mackey said: "I wanted Derrick Bird's victims, the families of those who were killed, the local community and our police officers and staff to be confident that our firearms licensing procedures were robust and fit for purpose.

"Assistant Chief Constable Whiting's review has confirmed that Bird owned his firearms lawfully and that we could not have used our firearms licensing process to identify him as a risk or prevent the tragic shootings in west Cumbria."

MDH: How about including Switzerland into your statistics.

Brainwashing with fairy tales will not make us safer. Ask those in the middle east if religious nuts are making their countries safer.

"fairy tales"? Hate much, Steveo? Plus you are comparing the teachings of Mohammed to the teachings of Christ. Apples and oranges. It's also important to note that when we had the Bible and prayer (and corporal punishment, too) in the public schools in the 1950's, a LOT less of this kind of thing happened.

Apples and Oranges? Really? So out of the roughly 63,000 religions in the history of mankind, your religion is the only one that is true. You base this off of blind faith, because you have no facts to back this up, and you call me a hater? Keep your primitive thoughts and brainwashing to yourself.

Steveo .....There is no greater "brainwashing" than that of the public school system aimed at America's youth .....To make them Godless, mindless followers ....Primed and ready to enter the Universities of America were they can be further reprogrammed. As much as you wish it were not ......faith is an important teaching .....Not a "fairy tale"

At least in fairy tales there is not mass murder involved.

That is why we are so behind the rest of the world educationally. Education needs to be based on facts and history, not blind faith into something that has been proven wrong throughout its history. If you want to teach your kids this ignorant garbage, do it at home or take them to Sunday school.

So do you propose public education teach our kids the teachings of every religion in the world, or just your form of (most likely) Christianity?

I hope you're joking RGmoon. There is more violence and calls to violence in the old testament than anything I've ever read or heard in my whole educational experience put together.

So, Steveo, you would do nothing to instill the values that Christ taught, such as "love thy neighbor" and so on, to ALL Americans, like we used to in the 1950's, thereby guaranteeing that the rate of horrific events like this will continue to increase in the future. Wow. Just wow.

Oh, and you completely missed my point about apples and oranges. You were the one who brought up the issue of "middle east ... religious nuts". I simply said that comparing the teachings of Mohammed, which the "middle eastern religious nuts" learn from the Koran, to the teachings of Christ, which are learned from the New Testament, is like comparing apples and oranges. Which it is. Read the Koran and the New Testament for yourself if you don't believe me.

Steveo......This country was founded on Christianity. That does not mean that we have to be intolerant of other religions. You see things in black and white.....this is a very complicated society that we live in.... diverse in every way. That's what makes it so great. You would do better to communicate with people instead of just antagonizing them and trying to pick a fight .

I did not say that we should not teach kids morals and the difference from right and wrong. No need for a bible or made up fairy tales to teach these things. Just like I know how to treat people right and know how to love and know what is right and what is wrong, but I think Christianity and every other religion is a farce and crutch for the weak who need it.

Steveo, you persist in showing your hatred of Christianity by calling it a "made up fairy tale", "a farce and a crutch for the weak" and so on. Yet claim to "know how to treat people right and to know how to love and to know what is right and wrong". Hmmmm.... this does not bode well for atheism. Would you offer atheism as the alternative? Don't forget that the atheists Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, Pot Pol, etc., killed millions upon millions of people in the name of the atheistic system of communism. Again, we did much better in terms of these horrible tragedies when the Bible and prayer were taught to every American in the public schools.

Peter, why not teach that everyone has a Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness? You infringe on someone's Right, you pay the consequences.

If we are going to teach your bible, can we teach mine? It is much different than yours, but if yours is taught, then so should mine.

They did just that in Great Britain and the murder rate went up 500%. There is a push to reverse some of the law to make it easier to get handguns.

?? Can you send me a link to this information?

On the face, I don't understand how banning hand guns can increase murders. When they did it in Canada, it had the desired affect.

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

I am having trouble copying and pasting for some reason. You can google "Great Britain Handgun Ban Fail" and get numerous articles.

Thanks for the info, Road Warrior. Peace to you.

According to this article, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html, there were 9,865 "firearm offences" in the UK in 2008.

How many "firearm offences" were there in the US in 2008?

So pass a law. Do you think that will stop those that are willing to break the law to obtain a hand gun? No it will only stop someone from using it to protect themselves or their family.

I do not think it is reasonable to split hairs when it comes to violence. Violence is violence guns or not.

Good point, Owned. Which kinda comes back to my point about bringing the Bible and prayer back into the public schools. If we restore a moral compass to people from day 1, it could reduce violence of all types in the future.

I have a family. I own a home. I protect my family very well (mostly by buying a home in a safe neighborhood). I do not own a gun.

I don't want to split hairs either. The fact that hand guns are the #1 murder weapon in the US, year after year, is not a hair. It is the elephant in the room. You don't want to talk about the elephant? :-)

I am talking about it. I once was on the fence about firearms. After learning for myself what it really is about and seeing first hand where the firearm community's heart is , I would be dishonest to agree with you at this moment.

@ petercha I think society has forgot its only friend is itself. I think popular culture is inherently man made. I think people should be compassionate to all. I think its better to stand alone when being honest than persuaded by peer pressure to justify falsehood. Common Sense.

After learning for myself what it really is about and seeing first hand where the firearm community's heart is

Well, what did you learn? Please share :-)

Overwhelmingly as a group they are whats well meaning and wholesome about this country.

How you boil the journey down is as individualized in nature as the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

But, it's not the hand guns that make them good. Is it?

And I concur, most of the people who own hand guns are decent folk. They keep their hand guns and their hand guns will not be used in the commission of a crime.

But some small number of people wil get hand guns and do something that will kill and ruin the lives of many.

So, what is more important? Letting decent folks have hand guns or raising the bar on hand gun ownership so that only those who are trained and sane and responsible have hand guns?

What a crock! Make it more difficult to get and more will steal from those that have them. You will never get rid of gun

We have, for all intents and purposes, gotten rid of machine guns. We can do the same for hand guns, if we want.

I actually wish everyone got firearm training not to be restrictive but more effective. But with that training and responsibility open carry and no more kill zones. Kill Zones are places firearms are illegal to possess even with a carry permit. Most mass shootings take place in these environments.

Not sure where your data on mass shootings comes from, though it seems plausible, given the psychological shock value attached with schools and theaters. I do agree with the idea that people should be required to test out and be licensed to purchase a firearm. There isn't a very good argument against registering your firearms like you do your cars either. Makes me unpopular, at times, to say these things given my stance on firearms.

Please do not think that America will ever be a country where any significant number of citizens walk around in public with hand guns.

Most Americans do not own a hand gun. Fewer still walk around with them in public.

"Kill zones" as you call them (let's use military phrases to talk about our society!!) will always be with us.

Strong language seems to be on par with the opposing sentiment.

I wear seat belts to protect myself when I drive. Why should I do any less when I go into the urban jungle with 315 million animals?

Because carrying a hand gun makes it more likely that you will be shot.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090930121512.htm

I have carried concealed by permit since 1995. I have never been shot, but have driven off potential threats many times in Memphis.

@Road Warrior

Nobody is saying to ban all guns just to ban military assault rifles, and large capacity clips, you can still have your hunting guns or your home protection arms.

Do you live in Memphis? If you live someplace where you often have to display a hand gun to protect yourself, you are living dangerously. A hand gun is not magic, one of these days, the bad guys are gonna win one. Be careful and please consider finding yourself a safer place to live.

a rational sane gun owner. wish you were part of the majority instead of the minority.

"Concealed" means nobody has to know you have a gun. A handgun is not magic, but it's a great equalizer, especially for petite women walking to their car at night.

"a rational sane gun owner. wish you were part of the majority instead of the minority." You have it completely wrong, Jane. The VAST majority of gun owners ARE rational and sane.

Actually most Americans firearm owners or not believe in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. You are the minority.

Yes, but relatively few Americans own hand guns and even fewer want to walk around in public with one. America will never be a country of citizens walking around with hand guns. (IMHO, if you carry a hand gun in pubilc and you are not required to do so by your job, you are a little crazy.)

In fact, most Americans do not own a gun of any kind. Many places in America would have very strict gun laws, if it were not for the 2nd amendment. America has become obsessed with safety. Seat belts, bicycle helmets, warnings on cigarette packs, laws against leaving kids in cars, etc. But America can do nothing about curbing the #1 murder weapon, hand guns.

US citizens understand if one amendment is malleable they all are. "At the moment decisions" are short sighted. Relatively speaking this moment really is a flash in the pan. Firearms come in all types similar to hand tools. You need the correct tool for the job. Sometimes that is a HandGun.

The 2nd amendment is malleable. For example, it is very difficult for you to buy a machine gun. It wasn't always like that. But the laws were changed to make it that way. That same can be done for hand guns, if we want.

"At the moment decisions"

Sure, but you do understand that the gun debate has been going on for decades?

If you pop up to YouTube, you can find a video from 1980. John Lennon had just been killed (by a hand gun murderer). Someone put a microphone under Ronald Reagan's nose and asked him if he thought that this would be a good time to make hand guns more difficult to get.

Being the good conservative/Republican, RR's reply was that the laws were fine as they were.

A few years later, RWR was shot and almost killed by someone with (can you guess?) a hand gun!!

Ronald Reagan supported general availability to the thing that almost killed him.

I mean, how can society make it so easy to get the thing that is most often used to murder? Why isn't that insane?

No matter, if there are more and more gun restrictions; It ONLY restricts law-abiding citizens. The criminals are going to get guns no matter how strict the laws are. They will continue to rob, hold-up and kill innocent people who are NOT armed.

Because we all want fewer murders . Gun control is simply not the answer.

The US Constitution and Bill of Rights being legislatively malleable is questionable in benefit.

I for one realize these wars are unconstitutional in a purist sense.

if there are more and more gun restrictions; It ONLY restricts law-abiding citizens

I'm not sure what that means. Can you explain, given what just happened in Colorado, where the killer bought his hand guns legally? Would it not have been a good thing if this, at the time, law abiding citizen, would NOT have been able to legally purchase his hand guns?

Missing the point, people. Our culture needs to look long and hard at its love affair with violence and change it. Until then, you can pass all the laws you want, but people who are so inclined towards violence are going to legally purchase guns and commit all kinds of heinous crimes. Ever asked yourself why the United States has the highest rates of gun violence among developed countries?

I asked myself that. And the answer I get back is, 'Because it's easy to obtain a gun".

That's all! Did you ever ask yourself why so many people travel between New York and California? It's because you can easily buy a plane ticket.

So if you outlawed certain modes of transportation they wouldn't travel?

If high-speed travel is not available, then yes, fewer people will travel greater distances. For example, I have never been to Australia. I would like to go, but it's like a one-day plane ride, and going to Australia is not worth spending one day on an airplane. If I could travel to Australia in five hours, I would go.

And so it is with hand guns. Hand guns make it easy to kill. That's why they are the #1 murder weapon in the US. If hand guns were not so easy to get, there would be fewer murders. Yes, some people will commit murder with another weapon, but many would not commit the murder because the thing that makes it easy is not available.

You do not have to travel . I think your argument is hypothetically inherently flawed. Hard not to do in this case.

In the real world as opposed to the hypothetical. I must defend myself from criminals/tyranny with guns/whatever and the advantage of premeditation.

Of course you don't have to travel. You also don't have to kill anyone. I don't mind if you think my argument is flawed, but I wish you could say why. In fact, I think it is true and applicable to the gun argument.

Yes, you want hand guns for protection. But here's the thing that is so obvious to me...You're playing a little game of arm's race. You want to have more firepower than the bad guys. So guns must be available to you. But if guns are available to you, then they also must be available to the bad guys.

You want to defend yourself with a hand gun? Are you saying that if a bad guy comes at you and brandishes a gun, that you are going to whip out your gun and have a shoot out?

You are going to be safer if bad guys do not have guns. But in order for bad guys to not have guns, you may need to give them up, too. If not immediately, then in future generations. For example, I'd favor a policy where hand gun restrictions go into effect immediately, but anyone who legally owns a hand gun now can keep theirs.

You say that you need your hand gun to protect yourself today. What about your children? Do you want that for them, too? Or can you think of a way to break the habit of guns with your generation, and give your children a better world for tomorrow?

What about keeping yourself safe without guns by living and working in places that are safe? Where there is no serious crime problem, where you don't need to carry a gun? Do you live in a dangerous place, or do you just feel that you need a gun, no matter where you are?

Davey when my wife an I were held up at gun point in front of a nice hotel in 2002. I was not a firearm owner. I walked between the gun and my wife and said whatever you want stay cool. after getting wallets he walked 15 ft away turned around and raised the gun at us , we dove between the cars and yelled. He then ran. You will never convince me I should roll that dice again. I did not automatically get a gun it was 5 years later after realizing how extremely lucky i was.

And by the way to this day i would still give him the wallet . He had the jump on us. The only thing different is when he turned around and raised the gun. He would have seen equal force and likely still ran. Except i would of had the ability to defend myself if necessary. Not to mention the new awoken intellect when it comes to my surroundings out of firearm responsibility.

Well look, as you can see, the same laws that let you (and me) purchase a hand gun was also used by the bad guy to get a hand gun. I still think the answer is not for some individuals to arm themselves, the answer is to reduce the availabilty of hand guns. That's what will make us all safer.

If hand guns were as difficult to obtain as machine guns, petty punk street crooks could never afford one (or, they would make more money by selling their hand gun, rather than by using it to stick up passerbyers).

Yes, you were lucky to survive that incident. And I'm glad that you did :-). You did the right thing.

But you take care now, I don't want to read about you in the newspapers, like we all read about George Zimmerman. It's easy to go out and buy a hand gun. It's easy to go walking around in public with a hand gun. But when the s hit hits the fan, will you know how to handle yourself with a hand gun? You need training to know how to react to a situation when you are armed. You can't just whip it out and start shooting. I hope you get the training to use that thing.

And I want you to be aware of one other thing. Guns do one thing very very well -- they turn confrontations into deadly confrontations. You survived your robbery experience. If you had a gun, shots could have been exchanged and someone (maybe you) could have ended up as a statistic. Be careful, you know there is evidence that carrying a gun makes it more likely that you will be shot:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090930121512.htm

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110427101532.htm

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199208133270705

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

The statistics are also clear in that they show that when a gun is fired and a person is killed, it is much more likely that a murder has occured, than a justifiable homicide.

be careful

be trained

Those studies are to narrow and not representative. Hardly enough sampling . They also do not discern domestic violence from random violence.

Can you tell me more about why these studies are too narrow and not representative? I am not an expert on studies. I mean, these studies were done by people with the words "doctor" somewhere in their title and/or were published by reputable institutions. Can you be more specific about why these studies are defective or deficient?

I am also intrigued by the distinction you make between domestic and randon violence. Can you show me any study or data compilation (i.e. FBI stats) that calls out random vs domestic violence?

Can you explain the difference between random and domestic violence?

But even with all aside, you do realize that having a hand gun and knowing how to use a hand gun in a confrontation are two different things? That possessing a hand gun does not automatically confer the knowledge about how to use it in a confrontation? Have you received the training necessary to use your hand gun wisely and effectively in a confrontation?

Davey . People train... My training started in the military. I continued that training in my civilian life vigorously at times. Early on i was more into physical ability not firearms. That changed when i realized my physical abilities are defeated easily when facing a gun .By the way i have never physically hit another human being out of anger in my adult life because i am not a criminal. Today after practicing various disciplines for so long I can slow environments down in my head to rationalize moments catch balls randomly thrown at me with my offhand and yell humorous obscenities all while remaining dynamic. Im also a oldschool trick dj been thinking with both sides of the brain at the same time since 13. I grew up in a NYC borough. I was taught and experienced that only criminals have guns. After leaving the sheltered cement jungle. It became clear the reason i only saw criminals in NYC with guns was because of restrictive gun laws which punish the law abiding. Your concerns are rudimentary. If you do not understand those studies why post them? You relinquished liberty to strangers. Show some integrity. And i challenge you to educate yourself and find out for yourself what the Firearm Community is really about first hand. To many falsehoods are leading to polarizing misunderstandings. Thusg to hypothetical hell.

Davey . In a city neighborhood when people become complacent and begin not locking windows and doors it attracts opportunist to the neighborhood which negatively effects the neighborhood for years. These restrictive gun laws have left the doors unlocked and has attracted opportunist.

Our conversation is starting to break down. In an effort to get us back on a more product path, and to understand each other better, let me ask just one question.

You said,

If you do not understand those studies why post them?

Question: Why did you conclude that I do not understand the studies?

Regional samplings of less than a thousand which do not distinguish domestic crimes[heightened passion] from a home invasion or armed burglary or murder or hunter or ccw or trained are subjective to the limits of its scope. Honestly i seriously do not have the time to explain and pick apart studies when the result is based on information arranged and compartmentalized by people i believe have less firearm or situational response experience than myself. I read the studies, flags went off. I have weighed many of these concerns personally and in group settings arriving at practical application. The only reason our conversation is breaking down is the truth rising to the top.

The only reason our conversation is breaking down is the truth rising to the top.

?? Truth causes a conversation to break down?

I am curious to know why you think the following are valid: domestic crimes[heightened passion] from a home invasion or armed burglary or murder or hunter or ccw or trained

I've seen a lot of data on gun use and gun violence. But I've never seen data called out in those categories. Can you point me to any data, any data, any studies at all that examine violence by passion?

I know for a fact that armed buglary is very, very rare. Burglars prefer to do their work when no one is home.

You're losing me man.

If you have any data to support your arguments, feel free to offer. Not surveys :-), data.

ok davey first

1. What is your background

2. What is your work experience

3. What area of the country do you live in. Do you live in USA

4. Were your parents divorced

5. Does your state have strict firearm laws

6. Have you shot a firearm if so what kind

7. how many times have you shot a firearm

8. Do you think other peoples real world experience has relevance

9 Do you have any close friends who own firearms

10. Do you have any friends which are carry permit holders.if so do you like them

11. Do you believe you have the right to tell others with relevant experience whats best for them

12. Would you consider your preference more important than real world experience

13. Do you believe i have the right to have any firearm. if so which ones

14. Do you believe i am competent enough to possess a firearm. if so which ones

15. Do you believe i am a threat to society.if so how

16. Do you believe i am a criminal.if so how

17. Do you believe i am a direct threat to you. if so how

18. Do you believe i am level headed

19. Should i force you to buy a gun because of my beliefs

20. Have you been directly the victim of gun violence. if so please explain

21. Have you ever been criminally victimized.if so please explain

22. pro-life

23 pro obama or romney

24. Is there another country you would like to live in

25. Have you ever committed a crime if so explain

26. Have you ever been arrested if so explain

27. Do you drink alcohol

28. do you or have you ever taken mental health enhancement drugs

What is the purpose of asking these questions?

Why don't you answer them first? :-) I'm interested to see if I think your answers are a meaningful contribution to the discussion of guns in America.

You are asking me to exhaust a large amount of time. I obviously disclosed enough personal information for you to stay interested in me. The answers to those questions would reignite my interest in you. I was not afraid to let you steer for a while. Do these questions make you uncomfortable? Are you offended? Should i become a mouth piece for a pro firearm website and post that data? Or are my personal experiences more interesting?