Fear of anti-gun legislation makes gun sales go through the roof in Colorado

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"][QUOTE="bigfoot2045"]

This. The answer to gun violence is not more guns.

Civilians shouldn't even have access to assault weapons. They serve no purpose other than to kill other people en masse.

bigfoot2045

What would you call an AR-15 or a pistol with a 20 round magazine?

You don't need an AR-15 with a 100 round drum magazine to go deer hunting. The only reason you would buy something like that is to kill people by the boatload.

[QUOTE="MlauTheDaft"]

[QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"] How about no and we focus on the other issues first? No reason to punish the innocent. I am not much a gun guy, but my harmless friend is. (I hope he is harmless)TheWalkingGhost

The bolded part pretty much says it all.

Not that he needs any mental deficiencies.... A solid dose of fear is plenty for an innocent to perform atrocities.

And I did'nt:? You have no idea either.

Call me paranoid but having grown up with strict gun laws and complete prohibition of killing in self defense, I prefer my sorroundings unarmed. As I already mentioned, a catastrophe does'nt take a maniac.... A little stupidity, clumsiness or bad luck is plenty.

[QUOTE="bigfoot2045"]

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"] Wait a minute, civilians have access to assault weapons? :/chrisrooR

What would you call an AR-15 or a pistol with a 20 round magazine?

You don't need an AR-15 with a 100 round drum magazine to go deer hunting. The only reason you would buy something like that is to kill people by the boatload.

Tell me you're not that naive, a simple google search will show you what kind of weapons can be brought quite legally and where to buy them and the bullets from.

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"][QUOTE="bigfoot2045"]

What would you call an AR-15 or a pistol with a 20 round magazine?

You don't need an AR-15 with a 100 round drum magazine to go deer hunting. The only reason you would buy something like that is to kill people by the boatload.

l34052

Tell me you're not that naive, a simple google search will show you what kind of weapons can be brought quite legally and where to buy them and the bullets from.

[QUOTE="l34052"]

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"] Well I didn't realize that kind of weaponry is actually attainable for the average joe. I'm up in Canada....and unless you're in the military, on a military base the only weapons you can buy from gun stores are small calibre handguns (not sure if you can still get handguns actually) and single-shot rifles strictly for hunting purposes.chrisrooR

Tell me you're not that naive, a simple google search will show you what kind of weapons can be brought quite legally and where to buy them and the bullets from.

Exactly, not naive at all!

Stricter gun laws wouldn't do much other than increasing the profit margins in the illicit gun trade. Yep I guess people are that dumb "hu derrrr lets ban guns, cuz guns are bad" . Have fun fending off a robber with your flashlight and mace.achilles614

So the solution to gun crime in the U.S. is to have more guns?

good. The reason why we have the right to bare arms is to protect are self from out of control government.k2theswiss

LOL

Hahahahahha

You think a few people having guns will protect us from the government? Should we be allowed to have tanks too? It'll keep us safe from the government.

It was one thing in the days of wars being fought with muskets. But in today's world you and your neighborhood militia aren't going to do ANYTHING if the government decided they want to come in and take you all out.

IMO the ban on assault-type weapons should not have expired. And drum magazines such as the one used in the attack should also be made illegal. I just don't see why you need either of those to be available to civilians. the_ChEeSe_mAn2

Yeah but what if you go hunting and you need to kill 100 deer really quickly?!?

I think everyone should have the right to bear arms and purchase weapons. That is, after extensive and expensive background checks, both into criminal past and psychological stability.

I'm sure there are millions of people out there who own guns who wouldn't ever use the to harm another person. Good for them. There are also criminals out there who can get guns legally in some areas because the restrictions are too lax.

We won't be able to stop every nut who wants to go on a rampage, but many places are making it way to easy.

[QUOTE="the_ChEeSe_mAn2"]IMO the ban on assault-type weapons should not have expired. And drum magazines such as the one used in the attack should also be made illegal. I just don't see why you need either of those to be available to civilians. JML897

Yeah but what if you go hunting and you need to kill 100 deer really quickly?!?

[QUOTE="JML897"]

[QUOTE="the_ChEeSe_mAn2"]IMO the ban on assault-type weapons should not have expired. And drum magazines such as the one used in the attack should also be made illegal. I just don't see why you need either of those to be available to civilians. the_ChEeSe_mAn2

Yeah but what if you go hunting and you need to kill 100 deer really quickly?!?

This is what I don't understand about America. Why don't they just ban guns when they are causing problems?

Well, I guess Americans are insane.

This is what I don't understand about America. Why don't they just ban guns when they are causing problems?

Well, I guess Americans are insane.

GamerwillzPS

Sounds like a lovely place to raise your kids!SolidSnake35

Assuming you are a necromancer.

MURICA'!SteverXIII

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEEwwJGyCZg

Take pictures and then leave them, of course. Americans are the only people that go out and hunt on a full stomach. l4dak47

Proof? I've hunted whitetail deer before, and we packaged up the meat.

Great news.

What's the point of this thread? So we're going to see similar shootings?

The lenient gun laws enabled this guy to commit his murders in the first place.

MlauTheDaft

It's not like he could have used some of the homemade explosives he made to blow up the theater...

Wait...

This guy was going to hurt people regardless of the guns. The homemade explosives that were in his apartment were a clear sign of that.

This is what I don't understand about America. Why don't they just ban guns when they are causing problems?

Well, I guess Americans are insane.

GamerwillzPS

This shows your ignorance about the gun culture in the USA. 80+ million gun owners, 300+ million firearms, and no harsh restrictions on gun ownership in over 200 years.

Banning guns would be like trying to ban wine in France.

[QUOTE="l4dak47"] Take pictures and then leave them, of course. Americans are the only people that go out and hunt on a full stomach. topsemag55

Proof? I've hunted whitetail deer before, and we packaged up the meat.

Banning guns would be like trying to ban wine in France.

Wasdie

Well, except nobody's ever died because someone threw wine in their face.

I think everyone should have the right to bear arms and purchase weapons. That is, after extensive and expensive background checks, both into criminal past and psychological stability.

I'm sure there are millions of people out there who own guns who wouldn't ever use the to harm another person. Good for them. There are also criminals out there who can get guns legally in some areas because the restrictions are too lax.

We won't be able to stop every nut who wants to go on a rampage, but many places are making it way to easy.

jimkabrhel

The problem with determining psychological stability is that psychologyis a very imperfect science. A person's mental state changes every year depending on how things unfold. You would have to have bi-yearly checkups and be subject to a lot of assumptions by "experts" to keep your firearms.

It's not really possible to judge ones mental stability as things can change with a person almost overnight.

Also, charging a lot of money to acquire a firearm would be the same as charging a lot of money for somebody to register to vote. You're taxing a right. So if you are against voter IDs, you shouldn't be for heafty fees on gun sales and registration.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Banning guns would be like trying to ban wine in France.

JML897

Well, except nobody's ever died because someone threw wine in their face.

You know what I mean.

Would you want to be the official who has to go collecting firearms? Especially firearms that can go clear through body armor?

That's kind of the point of the right to bear arms. It's not for you defending yourself against criminals, it's so you can defend yourself against the government. We had a problem with that back in the early 1700s. Our government at the time was forcing the quartering of troops and seizing weapons while imposing heavy taxes and suppressing the people all without any representation.

What's the point of this thread? So we're going to see similar shootings?

The lenient gun laws enabled this guy to commit his murders in the first place.

MlauTheDaft

[QUOTE="JML897"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Banning guns would be like trying to ban wine in France.

Wasdie

Well, except nobody's ever died because someone threw wine in their face.

You know what I mean.

Would you want to be the official who has to go collecting firearms? Especially firearms that can go clear through body armor?

That's kind of the point of the right to bear arms. It's not for you defending yourself against criminals, it's so you can defend yourself against the government. We had a problem with that back in the early 1700s. Our government at the time was forcing the quartering of troops and seizing weapons while imposing heavy taxes and suppressing the people all without any representation.

But didn't they ban guns in New York city?

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="JML897"]

Well, except nobody's ever died because someone threw wine in their face.

tenaka2

You know what I mean.

Would you want to be the official who has to go collecting firearms? Especially firearms that can go clear through body armor?

That's kind of the point of the right to bear arms. It's not for you defending yourself against criminals, it's so you can defend yourself against the government. We had a problem with that back in the early 1700s. Our government at the time was forcing the quartering of troops and seizing weapons while imposing heavy taxes and suppressing the people all without any representation.

But didn't they ban guns in New York city?

Not totally, just put really harsh restrictions on selling guns, and you cannot legally carry one concealed.

From what I can hear, the mayor would love to just ban guns all together.

it's so you can defend yourself against the government. We had a problem with that back in the early 1700s. Our government at the time was forcing the quartering of troops and seizing weapons while imposing heavy taxes and suppressing the people all without any representation.

Wasdie

The 1700s are a COMPLETELY different situation than 2012. You think your gun and your local neighborhood militia will pose any threat whatsoever to the government? Should we be allowed to own tanks and military aircraft too so we can adequately challenge the government?

When wars were fought with muskets etc there was a possibility of defending yourself against the government because it was a relatively even playing field. If the government today wanted to take you out they could do it in minutes and your assault rifles or whatever else you have aren't going to do anything.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

You know what I mean.

Would you want to be the official who has to go collecting firearms? Especially firearms that can go clear through body armor?

That's kind of the point of the right to bear arms. It's not for you defending yourself against criminals, it's so you can defend yourself against the government. We had a problem with that back in the early 1700s. Our government at the time was forcing the quartering of troops and seizing weapons while imposing heavy taxes and suppressing the people all without any representation.

Wasdie

But didn't they ban guns in New York city?

Not totally, just put really harsh restrictions on selling guns, and you cannot legally carry one concealed.

They did ban gun in australia with very good results, why wouldn't it work in the U.S.?

The gun ban was backed up by a mandatory buy-back program that substantially reduced gun possession in Australia.

iReporter: 'AK-47 a weapon for war'

The effect was that both gun suicides and homicides (as well as total suicides and homicides) fell. Importantly, while there were 13 mass shootings in Australia during the period of 1979--96, there have been none in the sixteen years since.

In 1996, then-Prime Minister John Howard stated that the "whole scheme is designed to reduce the number of guns in the community and make Australia a safer place to live." The Australian attorney general praised the cooperation and responsibility of Australian firearms owners with the gun controls and buy-back, saying, "they have been paid cash for their firearms - giving our nation a welcome Christmas gift by removing unnecessary high-powered firearms from the community. It offers all of us the real chance of a safer festive season and New Year."

Opinion: Can we feel safe in a crowd anymore?

Of course, the Australian gun control law in 1997 enjoyed an extremely high level of public support and was not hampered by any domestic gun industry (since Australia did not have any).

Such would not be the case in the United States where pro-gun political views and NRA power create a very different climate. In the wake of another tragic massacre of innocent lives, we should look carefully at the Australian experience to see if the American public will ever rise up as one against gun violence.

In Australia, I think it was 1996 a man went on a rampage with an automatic or semi automatic weapon and killed something like 35 people. We then banned those weapons, guess how many mass shootings we have had since? 0. Americans - use your brains, we know the NRA are powerful over there, with propaganda and such, but gawd open your eyes already joel_c17

My state has very lenientguns laws and one of the lowest crime rates in the entire country. Trying to pass gun control here is a sure fire way to get tossed out of office because we don't need it. It just inconviences people who are buying guns legally.

good. The reason why we have the right to bare arms is to protect are self from out of control government.k2theswiss

[QUOTE="joel_c17"]In Australia, I think it was 1996 a man went on a rampage with an automatic or semi automatic weapon and killed something like 35 people. We then banned those weapons, guess how many mass shootings we have had since? 0. Americans - use your brains, we know the NRA are powerful over there, with propaganda and such, but gawd open your eyes already UnknownSniper65

My state has very lenientguns laws and one of the lowest crime rates in the entire country. Trying to pass gun control here is a sure fire way to get tossed out of office because we don't need it. It just inconviences people who are buying guns legally.

Would you at least agree that extensive background/psychological checks should be required? If you're a sane upstanding citizen you shouldn't have anything to worry about.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="JML897"]

Well, except nobody's ever died because someone threw wine in their face.

tenaka2

You know what I mean.

Would you want to be the official who has to go collecting firearms? Especially firearms that can go clear through body armor?

That's kind of the point of the right to bear arms. It's not for you defending yourself against criminals, it's so you can defend yourself against the government. We had a problem with that back in the early 1700s. Our government at the time was forcing the quartering of troops and seizing weapons while imposing heavy taxes and suppressing the people all without any representation.

But didn't they ban guns in New York city?

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

it's so you can defend yourself against the government. We had a problem with that back in the early 1700s. Our government at the time was forcing the quartering of troops and seizing weapons while imposing heavy taxes and suppressing the people all without any representation.

JML897

The 1700s are a COMPLETELY different situation than 2012. You think your gun and your local neighborhood militia will pose any threat whatsoever to the government? Should we be allowed to own tanks and military aircraft too so we can adequately challenge the government?

When wars were fought with muskets etc there was a possibility of defending yourself against the government because it was a relatively even playing field. If the government today wanted to take you out they could do it in minutes and your assault rifles or whatever else you have aren't going to do anything.

Considering how easily a ragtag group of uneducated militia can hold off the entire US army in a foreign land, yes, I believe a local militia could really hamper the US military in many ways. Tanks and what not are useless in city fighting and the citizens have access to body armor, night vision, thermal optics, and high powered assault rifles that could be converted to fully auto if absolutly necessary.

Remember as well, the US military would go in completely knowing they are shooting at the people they believe they are protecting. Almost all of my buddies in the military are big gun right activists. The prospect of dearmingthe people would piss off the majority of the military.

It still stands that weapons protect the people from their own governemnt. If they weren't such a threat, why has every single communist nation banned firearms and had campaigns where they would dearm people?

Ok, so guns are banned. He can't find any guns, so he uses the same bomb materials he rigged his apartment with, fills up a truck and drives it into the theater instead. Now we have a new Oklahoma bombing on our hands, because he wouldn't get guns... Gun control simply isn't the easy answer that you anti-gun people think it is... JustPlainLucas

Homicide rates must be so high(or equally) in Canada, Japan, Norway... because they have more strict gun laws, so I guess people just, every day, go out and blow the crap out of everything with explosives instead. :roll:

Yes, it 'is' possible he would have, but it's also likely that the overall homicides per year would go down at the same time, resulting in an overall decrease in homicides even with a bombing.

Of course we have some cultural issues as well, but is our culture so bad that we'd certainly maintain our 3x higher homicide rate than Canada?

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

You know what I mean.

Would you want to be the official who has to go collecting firearms? Especially firearms that can go clear through body armor?

That's kind of the point of the right to bear arms. It's not for you defending yourself against criminals, it's so you can defend yourself against the government. We had a problem with that back in the early 1700s. Our government at the time was forcing the quartering of troops and seizing weapons while imposing heavy taxes and suppressing the people all without any representation.

noscope-ak47

But didn't they ban guns in New York city?

Thank you for providing a perfect example of anecdotal bullsh*t.

[QUOTE="JML897"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

it's so you can defend yourself against the government. We had a problem with that back in the early 1700s. Our government at the time was forcing the quartering of troops and seizing weapons while imposing heavy taxes and suppressing the people all without any representation.

Wasdie

The 1700s are a COMPLETELY different situation than 2012. You think your gun and your local neighborhood militia will pose any threat whatsoever to the government? Should we be allowed to own tanks and military aircraft too so we can adequately challenge the government?

When wars were fought with muskets etc there was a possibility of defending yourself against the government because it was a relatively even playing field. If the government today wanted to take you out they could do it in minutes and your assault rifles or whatever else you have aren't going to do anything.

Considering how easily a ragtag group of uneducated militia can hold off the entire US army in a foreign land, yes, I believe a local militia could really hamper the US military in many ways. Tanks and what not are useless in city fighting and the citizens have access to body armor, night vision, thermal optics, and high powered assault rifles that could be converted to fully auto if absolutly necessary.

Remember as well, the US military would go in completely knowing they are shooting at the people they believe they are protecting. Almost all of my buddies in the military are big gun right activists. The prospect of dearmingthe people would piss off the majority of the military.

It still stands that weapons protect the people from their own governemnt. If they weren't such a threat, why has every single communist nation banned firearms and had campaigns where they would dearm people?

These posts should come complete with tinfoil hats :D

Would you want to be the official who has to go collecting firearms? Especially firearms that can go clear through body armor?

Wasdie

You're not helping your point there.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

But didn't they ban guns in New York city?

tenaka2

Not totally, just put really harsh restrictions on selling guns, and you cannot legally carry one concealed.

They did ban gun in australia with very good results, why wouldn't it work in the U.S.?

The gun ban was backed up by a mandatory buy-back program that substantially reduced gun possession in Australia.

iReporter: 'AK-47 a weapon for war'

The effect was that both gun suicides and homicides (as well as total suicides and homicides) fell. Importantly, while there were 13 mass shootings in Australia during the period of 1979--96, there have been none in the sixteen years since.

In 1996, then-Prime Minister John Howard stated that the "whole scheme is designed to reduce the number of guns in the community and make Australia a safer place to live." The Australian attorney general praised the cooperation and responsibility of Australian firearms owners with the gun controls and buy-back, saying, "they have been paid cash for their firearms - giving our nation a welcome Christmas gift by removing unnecessary high-powered firearms from the community. It offers all of us the real chance of a safer festive season and New Year."

Opinion: Can we feel safe in a crowd anymore?

Of course, the Australian gun control law in 1997 enjoyed an extremely high level of public support and was not hampered by any domestic gun industry (since Australia did not have any).

Such would not be the case in the United States where pro-gun political views and NRA power create a very different climate. In the wake of another tragic massacre of innocent lives, we should look carefully at the Australian experience to see if the American public will ever rise up as one against gun violence.

It's pretty much apples and oranges. Australia isn't only an island (where trade can be monitored much more closely), it has less than a quarter of the population of the USA (only 22 million people), shares no land borders with any nation, it has no internal weapons manufacturing, and is far less diverse in culture than that of the USA (which is still a huge issue as cultures still don't get along like they should).

They could easily strip gun rights away in Australia. It doesn't and never did have the gun culture that the USA does. It had one, but that was really the minority of the nation. As you said, the people welcomed it in Australia. They wouldn't welcome it here.

Comparing the USA to Australia is absolutely pointless.

[QUOTE="noscope-ak47"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

But didn't they ban guns in New York city?

tenaka2

Thank you for providing a perfect example of anecdotal bullsh*t.

[QUOTE="MlauTheDaft"]

What's the point of this thread? So we're going to see similar shootings?

The lenient gun laws enabled this guy to commit his murders in the first place.

Wasdie

It's not like he could have used some of the homemade explosives he made to blow up the theater...

Wait...

This guy was going to hurt people regardless of the guns. The homemade explosives that were in his apartment were a clear sign of that.

His confidence in the home made bombs obviously was'nt strong enough to use them actively.

And did you really bring up the early 1700s? The situation back then has no relevance today:? I doubt a polite and constructive discussion is possible with you.

As far as I'm concerned, integrating weaponry into civilian culture, promotes hostility and aggression. Humans don't handle power well.