Thread: Another Massacre in Colorado

Originally Posted by Jimmors

Whats there to complain about? If the killers are aprehended, then charge them with manslaughter/murder, give them their due process and put em in jail. Not sure what we are supposed to be "complaining" about in this instance.

Yet, the "complaining" about firearm violence goes on and on and on and on and on and on, even when they are apprehended (and they usually ARE), charged, given due process and incarcerated. So.... what's the difference?

Originally Posted by Jimmors

But actually, yes..drunk drivers makes an excellent analogy. Its not the car thats the problem, its the person. The vast majority of drivers do not engage in such reckless behavior, so should we legalize drunk driving? I mean, a drunk driver is going to drink, and drive if he wants to, regardless if its illegal or not, so why not just legalize it? Because by keeping it illegal, you reduce the number of drunk driving incidents. You reduce their ability to drive. Does it still happen? Yes. But not nearly as bad as it could be if it were legal.

Excellent? Let's try it...

Its not the car gun thats the problem, its the person. The vast majority of drivers gun owners do not engage in such reckless behavior, so should we legalize drunk driving gun violence? I mean, a drunk driver criminal is going to drink commit crime, and drive murder someone if he wants to, regardless if its illegal or not, so why not just legalize it? Because by keeping it illegal, you reduce the number of drunk driving incidents murders. You reduce their ability to drive kill. Does it still happen? Yes. But not nearly as bad as it could be if it were legal.

You're right.. EXCELLENT analogy. They both have laws already in place to prevent them (drinking/driving, murder/assault), nobody is talking about legalizing either of those things, both are crimes committed by a person using an inanimate object.... so why in the case of firearms only is there an attempt to ban the object? Especially in light of the very commonly known fact that vehicle's kill more people annually than firearms. So, why not a call to limit vehicle speeds, via manual means and not a sign, to 80? Why try to ban the one thing, of these two, that is Constitutionally protected (unless I accidentally skipped over the horse/buggy part of the framers intent).

If a car is nothing more than a tool that 99.9% of all owners use responsibly, then so is a firearm.

Originally Posted by Jimmors

Same should be for certain guns, such as automatic rifles. Nobody has yet to provide me with ANY plausible reason why a person would NEED an automatic rifle, whether for protection or hunting.

And here's the important part: Why does ANYBODY "need" to provide you with any reason (plausible or not) for them to exercise one of their Constitutional Rights? They need no more valid reason than "because I can". And while you may very well be right (I'm not saying you are, but...) that the original intent was for a "well regulated" militia, or anything like that.... SCOTUS obviously disagrees or we wouldn't continue to have this conversation every time some batshit insane idiot decides to break our already existing laws.

Now, there is ONE thing we sort of agree on. High capacity magazines. I don't care if you are hunting, or intending to defend yourself against random violence (criminal behavior), there shouldn't be any fucking need for a magazine to carry more than 10 rounds.

HOWEVER, the idea behind the "Right to Bear Arms" is for your defense from government tyranny. The whole "unarmed citizens are subjects" argument, if you will. If you are going to argue "original intent" (well regulated militia), than why ignore the rest of that original intent? Wouldn't bans of any type of firearm be exactly what the framers intended to prevent? Keeping this train of thought in mind, I wouldn't mind having as many high capacity magazines as I could carry on me. But, let's be realistic... it's not likely that we will see a need for an uprising like this. Unless, of course, we get another Katrina and LE takes it upon themselves to disarm everybody they can. They are lucky as fuck they didn't run into some III%'ers when they were doing that illegal shit.

Q: How does draconian firearm laws, those that make it damn near impossible for ordinary citizens to own/carry, work for Chicago and NY?

A: Not very well.

Again, the point... personal accountability. Spoons don't make you fat. Cars don't make you kill. Drinking doesn't make you kill. Guns don't make you kill. PEOPLE do all that of their own choice. Don't blame the tool, blame the USER of the tool.

I do like the "legalize drugs because anyone wanting to use them is going to get them no matter what the law says" crowd (not saying it's you) now bleating about "banning weapons (even certain kinds) will keep them out of the hands of criminals". Uh, no... they won't.

Originally Posted by Jimmors

James Holmes didnt seem to have a problem buying an assault rifle or hundred round magazine. Perhaps "if it were not so easy" to do so, "a lot of american lives would be spared."

Because, you know...someone intent on committing a crime will do so REGARDLESS of what the law says.

It would be equally true to say that a gun-free zone didn't seem to have a preventative effect on a lot of American lives being extinguished. On the contrary... even one CCW holder in that theater MAY have been able to end it before that many people got killed and hurt. Sure, I can't state for a fact that it WOULD, but since you want to deal in "perhaps", it is EQUALLY likely.

With one major difference. You're banking on the behavior of criminals, and I'm banking on the behavior of law abiding citizens.

Originally Posted by Jimmors

Youre right, you cant state for a fact that it would. the AZ shooting had CCW owners carrying and nobody stopped it.

And no, im not banking on the behavior of criminals, i am "banking" on the availability of certain guns. Holmes bought all of his guns legally, so if he was unable to purchase an AR-15, how many lives wouldve been saved? If all he had was handguns and shotgun, would he have been able to kill/injure as many as he did? Probably not. And those wouldve been real lives saved. And people would still be able to purchase guns, just not ARs, so their Constitutional right would be protected.

I don't know that an AR is any more dangerous than a semi auto handgun. I also don't know that high capacity clips are any more of a problem than low capacity. Reloading can be done in a split second by anyone with experience handling that gun... assuming he's carrying multiple clips/magazines with the total ammount of ammunition as the single high capacity clip.

Obviously we agree that there is a reasonable limit. I wouldn't fight for the right to allow rpgs or grenades.

Motown is also right that a person wanting to ccw should take tactical training. I personally don't ccw, but am contemplating getting my permit. I have taken many hunting courses (my dad put me through 4h shooting classes and Hunter safety/gun safety courses before he would allow me to hunt)... Which was a great idea. I am very familiar with many makes and models of guns. I can kill quail, rabbits, squirrel, deer, etc. I'm sure that I would be ineffective with a handgun in a self defense scenerio.

Did loki say government trannys?

Originally Posted by 4th and 26

What if he would have brought some of his home made grenades to the theater and used them on the crowd, a lot more lives would have been killed. Maybe the internet should be shut down so people like him can't purchase weapons or learn how to make bombs that will be used to harm people.

You can't do that. Just like there will ALWAYS be murders with guns even if the guns are illgeal. However what you can do is make it harder to people to gain acess to them. As far as I know a hole bunch of terriorst sides are blocked, so you can't go and read how to make a bomb that easy.
10-15 years ago in Denmark you could go down to the library and borrow books; how to create bombs, and you could go down to a shop and buy some of the things needed. You can't do that anymore, which makes it harder. Surely you could drive a cross the borders and buy the stuff you needed but that would be harder than just buying it down the street. And because you need to do a harder effort, you either quit your plans because you realize what you are planning to do, or you do it.

The point is not that banning guns will prevent all murders and stuff, but it would make it harder and that might scare people off. Like if I wanna fancy a cake and I cba to bake one myself, my local baker is under 1 km away surely I'd go there and buy it then. If the nearest baker was 15km away I would probberly not go and buy it as it gonna take me to much of an effort.

What's all this kilometer crap?