Fallout: Massacre @ Cinema 9

[Langston Hughes]

That's because there on those on the far end of the spectrum who want to ban guns outright. The NRA sees these actions steps toward that end. If the threat of all out ban was removed, they might be a bit more conciliatory.

 

In true BON fashion I had a lousy analogy about the adult porn industry but then I realized that the NRA might fight to keep donkey shows legal too.

[Langston Hughes]

Still waiting for your answer about the Harlem assembly plant............

 

I can appreciate your patient but I do wonder about your answers to the point I made. You'll just have to wait a little bit longer for mine.

Edited July 29, 2012 by Langston Hughes

[fmccap]

And now the real story behind our political system is coming to light. Will you guys wake up in time?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/29/scalia-opens-door-for-gun-control-legislation/

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/29/antonin-scalia-guns_n_1715969.html

[Trimdingman]

My brother and several friends own guns as did my dad. I don't have anything at all against law abiding gun owners. Growing up and living in Western PA it's pretty much impossible not to know gun owners. My problem with the gun lobby is that they stand against every form of regulation, even things designed to keep guns out of the hands of those who we can agree should not have them. All rights have limits . Certainly no one thinks that mentally ill people should have gund capable of firing off 60 rounds or more in two minutes.

 

There should be mandatory backround checks for every sale, including gun shows.

There should be a national database of people who have lost their right to have guns for criminal behavior or mental illness.

There should be a limit on the number of guns that can be purchased by a non-licensed dealer.

There should be a limit on wepons that can be converted to full automatic fire and on large capacity magazines.

There should be strict liability for straw purchasers who buy guns for those who cannot pass a backround check.

 

How do you stop criminals from obtaining handguns? You can't.

How do you stop law-abiding citizens from obtaining handguns? Make it illegal.

Who is benefitting from laws against handguns? The criminals.

 

 

Criminals are not going to go through regular channels to buy handguns. They buy them on the black market. Once used in a crime, they have to be disposed of and another one purchased because ballistics can trace the slug to that gun. The black market in illegal firearms is big business. Forcing criminals to buy guns on the black market creates the black market; more criminal gangs for the police to deal with on our tax dollars. There is no answer, just a lot of wasted money. I say give it up. End gun prohibition and at least some tax money will be saved, and gun runners will be out of business.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Trimdingman

[Mark B. Morrow]

How do you stop criminals from obtaining handguns? You can't.

How do you stop law-abiding citizens from obtaining handguns? Make it illegal.

Who is benefitting from laws against handguns? The criminals.

 

 

Criminals are not going to go through regular channels to buy handguns. They buy them on the black market. Once used in a crime, they have to be disposed of and another one purchased because ballistics can trace the slug to that gun. The black market in illegal firearms is big business. Forcing criminals to buy guns on the black market creates the black market; more criminal gangs for the police to deal with on our tax dollars. There is no answer, just a lot of wasted money. I say give it up. End gun prohibition and at least some tax money will be saved, and gun runners will be out of business.

 

So you're advocating letting every criminal and mentally ill person legally buy guns without any backround check at all? That will work out just fine.

 

No one is making it illegal for law-abiding citizens to purchase guns. President Obama has not even suggested banning guns. He has publicly affirmed that he believes that the Second Amendment does provide for a private right to bear arms. Even Justice Scalia has stated that the Second Amendment right is not absolute or unlimited. There is no right to a machine gun or a Bazooka.

 

I agree that no law will keep every criminal or mentally ill person from obtaining guns. The black market does drive up the price which may deter some.There will always be a black market for any type of illegal item. That is not a justification to have no laws.

 

Your anti-law, anti-government dream world isnt a utopia, it's anarchy ruled by the biggest and least civilized. You're welcome to it, but not in anyplace I have to live.

[Trimdingman]

So you're advocating letting every criminal and mentally ill person legally buy guns without any backround check at all? That will work out just fine.

 

No one is making it illegal for law-abiding citizens to purchase guns. President Obama has not even suggested banning guns. He has publicly affirmed that he believes that the Second Amendment does provide for a private right to bear arms. Even Justice Scalia has stated that the Second Amendment right is not absolute or unlimited. There is no right to a machine gun or a Bazooka.

 

I agree that no law will keep every criminal or mentally ill person from obtaining guns. The black market does drive up the price which may deter some.There will always be a black market for any type of illegal item. That is not a justification to have no laws.

 

Your anti-law, anti-government dream world isnt a utopia, it's anarchy ruled by the biggest and least civilized. You're welcome to it, but not in anyplace I have to live.

 

No amount of legislation or policing will prevent criminals from obtaining handguns. Get that into your head. Attempted prohibition creates a new criminal industry just like prohibition of alcohol did back in the days of Al Capone and Joe Kennedy; and just like drug prohibition does now. Billions of dollars are being wasted trying to control drugs and guns, but it is futile and creates a lucrative crime industry. I don't want criminals to have guns, but they are going to have them whether I like it or not. Let law abiding citizens have equal access and it will at least put an end to gun running and the billions spent on policing a lost cause. How many police do you think are in on this business taking payoffs? The more crime, the more money police make. They are against any measures that will actually reduce crime.

 

The cost of a gun on the black market is no deterrant to the criminal who is going to use it in a $100,000 bank robbery or paid hit. Often the gun will be thrown in. People are so indoctrinated to fear guns that the sight of one causes them to shit their pants. People need to own guns, and become skilled at using them and handling them safely.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Trimdingman

[Mark B. Morrow]

No amount of legislation or policing will prevent criminals from obtaining handguns. Get that into your head. Attempted prohibition creates a new criminal industry just like prohibition of alcohol did back in the days of Al Capone and Joe Kennedy; and just like drug prohibition does now. Billions of dollars are being wasted trying to control drugs and guns, but it is futile and creates a lucrative crime industry. I don't want criminals to have guns, but they are going to have them whether I like it or not. Let law abiding citizens have equal access and it will at least put an end to gun running and the billions spent on policing a lost cause. How many police do you think are in on this business taking payoffs? The more crime, the more money police make. They are against any measures that will actually reduce crime.

 

The cost of a gun on the black market is no deterrant to the criminal who is going to use it in a $100,000 bank robbery or paid hit. Often the gun will be thrown in. People are so indoctrinated to fear guns that the sight of one causes them to shit their pants. People need to own guns, and become skilled at using them and handling them safely.

 

Your world is very dark. Let's just have shoot outs on every street and settle every dispute with a bullit.

 

Law abiding citizens already have access to guns. Following the law is what makes them "law abiding".

 

Laws don't work 100% of the time so let's have none. Some cops are crooked so let's have none. Is that really a world you want to live in?

 

I guess we'd have to spend a lot of that money you claim we'd save on cleaning up the bodies.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Mark B. Morrow

[Versa-Tech]

 

 

You think the NRA gives a damn about funding mental health programs? You're kidding, right? The NRA is all about spreading unfounded fears that any regulation is tantamount to having the feds kick in every door looking for guns. Remember, the NRA opposed every regulation from backround checks to outlawing the sale of cop killer bullets. They don't offer any solutions only fear that they can make money from.

Mark, this is the thrid time you've asked this type of question. The NRA is not a charity, it's a lobby. I don't understand where your coming from. As an entity, the NRA's primary purpose is to protect the second ammendment. I'm sure many of their members donate substantial amounts of time, services, and money to other causes, but the entity itself should not have an opinion on these matters.

[sprinter]

Kennesaw is a city in Cobb County, Georgia, United States, located in the greater Atlanta metropolitan area. It had a population of 29,783 according to the 2010 census. Founded in 1887, Kennesaw has a past surrounded with railroad history. During the Civil War, Kennesaw was the staging ground for the Great Locomotive Chase on April 12, 1862.

In 2007, the city was selected by Family Circle magazine as one of the nation's "10 best towns for families".^[3] The city is perhaps best known nationally for its mandatory gun-possession law.^[4]

 

^{http://en.wikipedia....nnesaw,_Georgia}

 

 

^{Gun rights activist David Kopel has claimed that there is evidence that this gun law has reduced the incident rate of home burglaries citing that in the first year, home burglaries dropped from 65 before the ordinance, down to 26 in 1983, and to 11 in 1984.[19] Another report observed a noticeable reduction in burglary from 1981, the year before the ordinance was passed, to 1999.[20]}

^{Later research claims that there is no evidence that [the law] reduced the rate of home burglaries [in Kennesaw][21][22], even though the overall crime rate had decreased by more than 50% between 1982 and 2005.[23]}

^{The city's website[24] claims the city has the lowest crime rate in the county.}

Edited July 30, 2012 by sprinter

[cal50]

I like Switzerland's idea of giving you (able bodied males) a real automatic rifle, ammo and a range to use it.

 

Maybe its the sense of country or personal responsibility that its not a coincidence they are not deep in A-holes and social misfits as we are.

 

Or~

 

Ph.D / attorneys view point.

 

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html

[Langston Hughes]

I like Switzerland's idea of giving you (able bodied males) a real automatic rifle, ammo and a range to use it.

 

Maybe its the sense of country or personal responsibility that its not a coincidence they are not deep in A-holes and social misfits as we are.

 

Or~

 

Ph.D / attorneys view point.

 

http://www.stephenha...rime-swiss.html

 

I believe that America due to it's history, culture and it's size will always have a problem with gun violence that will not go away. I am not in favor of asking everyone to be armed and I am not in favor of disarming everyone but hope that one day gun violence will diminish. Human life on all sides seems to be really cheap anymore, maybe if we convince people that it is not then we can truly stop gun violence.

[NickF1011]

I believe that America due to it's history, culture and it's size will always have a problem with gun violence that will not go away. I am not in favor of asking everyone to be armed and I am not in favor of disarming everyone but hope that one day gun violence will diminish. Human life on all sides seems to be really cheap anymore, maybe if we convince people that it is not then we can truly stop gun violence.

 

Why specifically limit it to gun violence though? Not like it's a worse than other kinds of violence.

[grbeck]

There should be mandatory backround checks for every sale, including gun shows.

 

There are already mandatory background checks for buyers of weapons at gun shows. The "gun show loophole" is a myth, created either by people who don't understand the current law, or are trying to shut down gun shows by spreading misinformation.

 

All sales at gun shows by licensed dealers are subject to federal background checks. This type of sale is treated no differently than the sales conducted at the dealer's permanent place of business.

 

There are no background checks conducted if the seller is an individual selling a firearm. That is because such a requirement would be unenforceable. The seller could simply sell the firearm from his or her home, and thus avoid gun shows entirely. Note, however, that STATES can place additional requirements on private transactions involving firearms.

 

The Colorado shooter did purchase his firearms from a licensed dealer. He was thus subject to the background checks, and passed. He wasn't buying his weapons at gun shows (and would have been subject to the background check if he did purchase one from a licensed dealer at a show) or through a private sale from an individual. This issue has nothing to do with this case.

 

There should be a national database of people who have lost their right to have guns for criminal behavior or mental illness.

 

Under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, gun dealers already perform a background check by calling either a state database or the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. At any rate, the check is ultimately run thorugh the federal system, which, in turn, is linked to the National Crime Information Center and Interstate Identification Index, both of which are maintained by the FBI. These databases maintain millions of federal and state records, and determine whether the purchaser falls into one of nine categories contained in the federal Gun Control Act that will result in the denial of the purchase. Two of those categories are mental illness and criminal records.

 

Regarding mental illness, a person must be found to be mentally ill, by a judge, before he or she can be denied the right to purchase a firearm. For a judge to make this determination, the person must either be deemed a threat to him- or herself, a threat to others, or receiving court-ordered treatment. This is a difficult barrier to surmount. This is the real hurdle, not the lack of a federal database, unless you are proposing to relax this standard.

 

Odd behavior, and seeing a psychiatrist voluntarily, are not sufficient reasons to deny a person the right to purchase or own a firearm, as they are not proof, in and of themselves, of mental illness.

 

Permits to carry a weapon are issued at the state level, and are another matter entirely. I doubt that someone planning to kill a bunch of strangers at a movie theater would ultimately be deterred solely because he lacked a permit to carry a firearm outside of his home or property.

 

There should be a limit on the number of guns that can be purchased by a non-licensed dealer.

 

It would have done nothing to have stopped this case, regardless of whether the limit is how many guns a person can buy within a specific time frame (one month, for example) or how many guns he or she can buy in a lifetime.

 

At the scene of the crime, the Colorado shooter had three guns with him. If Colorado had limited gun purchases to one per month, he could have bought them over three months - which was about the amount of time he spent planning this crime. So it would have made no difference.

 

There should be a limit on wepons that can be converted to full automatic fire and on large capacity magazines.

 

We had the automatic weapons ban, and it made no difference. Even several proponents and police officials admitted as much. It expired, and the crime rate continued to fall. It was as ineffective as the 55 mph speed limit.

 

There should be strict liability for straw purchasers who buy guns for those who cannot pass a backround check.

 

Does this include Mayor Bloomberg and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms? From what I've seen, they are the biggest offenders.

 

I'd be willing to bet that the people who serve as straw purchasers (and I have yet to see any identified in the media, which tells me that this problem is largely imaginary) generally aren't the type who own assets that could be seized in a judgement. Middle-income and upper-middle income people with homes, cars, stocks and mutual funds aren't serving as straw purchasers for felons or mentally ill people who want to purchase a firearm.

 

Rich criminal kingpins generally only exist in the movies and Miami Vice reruns.

Edited July 30, 2012 by grbeck

[cal50]

There are already mandatory background checks for buyers of weapons at gun shows. The "gun show loophole" is a myth, created either by people who don't understand the current law, or are trying to shut down gun shows by spreading misinformation.

 

All sales at gun shows by licensed dealers are subject to federal background checks. This type of sale is treated no differently than the sales conducted at the dealer's permanent place of business.

 

There are no background checks conducted if the seller is an individual selling a firearm. That is because such a requirement would be unenforceable. The seller could simply sell the firearm from his or her home, and thus avoid gun shows entirely. Note, however, that STATES can place additional requirements on private transactions involving firearms.

 

The Colorado shooter did purchase his firearms from a licensed dealer. He was thus subject to the background checks, and passed. He wasn't buying his weapons at gun shows (and would have been subject to the background check if he did purchase one from a licensed dealer at a show) or through a private sale from an individual. This issue has nothing to do with this case.

 

 

 

Under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, gun dealers already perform a background check by calling either a state database or the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. At any rate, the check is ultimately run thorugh the federal system, which, in turn, is linked to the National Crime Information Center and Interstate Identification Index, both of which are maintained by the FBI. These databases maintain millions of federal and state records, and determine whether the purchaser falls into one of nine categories contained in the federal Gun Control Act that will result in the denial of the purchase. Two of those categories are mental illness and criminal records.

 

Regarding mental illness, a person must be found to be mentally ill, by a judge, before he or she can be denied the right to purchase a firearm. For a judge to make this determination, the person must either be deemed a threat to him- or herself, a threat to others, or receiving court-ordered treatment. This is a difficult barrier to surmount. This is the real hurdle, not the lack of a federal database, unless you are proposing to relax this standard.

 

Odd behavior, and seeing a psychiatrist voluntarily, are not sufficient reasons to deny a person the right to purchase or own a firearm, as they are not proof, in and of themselves, of mental illness.

 

Permits to carry a weapon are issued at the state level, and are another matter entirely. I doubt that someone planning to kill a bunch of strangers at a movie theater would ultimately be deterred solely because he lacked a permit to carry a firearm outside of his home or property.

 

 

 

It would have done nothing to have stopped this case, regardless of whether the limit is how many guns a person can buy within a specific time frame (one month, for example) or how many guns he or she can buy in a lifetime.

 

At the scene of the crime, the Colorado shooter had three guns with him. If Colorado had limited gun purchases to one per month, he could have bought them over three months - which was about the amount of time he spent planning this crime. So it would have made no difference.

 

 

 

We had the automatic weapons ban, and it made no difference. Even several proponents and police officials admitted as much. It expired, and the crime rate continued to fall. It was as ineffective as the 55 mph speed limit.

 

 

 

Does this include Mayor Bloomberg and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms? From what I've seen, they are the biggest offenders.

 

I'd be willing to bet that the people who serve as straw purchasers (and I have yet to see any identified in the media, which tells me that this problem is largely imaginary) generally aren't the type who own assets that could be seized in a judgement. Middle-income and upper-middle income people with homes, cars, stocks and mutual funds aren't serving as straw purchasers for felons or mentally ill people who want to purchase a firearm.

 

Rich criminal kingpins generally only exist in the movies and Miami Vice reruns.

 

 

 

Well said and to add~

 

Some states have a state requirement that a person needs a state issued and approved firearm ownership card to own or even touch a firearm in a store. New Jersey is a good example. No private sales and all sales or transfers must go through licensed dealers.

This only adds cost ( Dealer transfer / paperwork fee and state ID fee) and does ZERO to any criminal activity.

 

Criminals do not wait to buy guns, they more often steal them or obtain them illegally.

Its the average guy that jumps through the hoops and pays more and gets fewer privileges.

[TomServo92]

 

 

 

 

Well said and to add~

 

Some states have a state requirement that a person needs a state issued and approved firearm ownership card to own or even touch a firearm in a store. New Jersey is a good example. No private sales and all sales or transfers must go through licensed dealers.

This only adds cost ( Dealer transfer / paperwork fee and state ID fee) and does ZERO to any criminal activity.

 

Criminals do not wait to buy guns, they more often steal them or obtain them illegally.

Its the average guy that jumps through the hoops and pays more and gets fewer privileges.

 

That's the part that just escapes the anti-gun lobby.

[Langston Hughes]

Criminals do not wait to buy guns, they more often steal them or obtain them illegally.

Its the average guy that jumps through the hoops and pays more and gets fewer privileges.

 

Holmes most certainly did.

[TomServo92]

 

 

Holmes most certainly did.

 

Incidents like that are rare in comparison to the regular gun crime committed every day by those who don't purchase within the law. Holmes could have just as easily tossed malotov cocktails filled with legally purchase gasoline and probably killed more people than he did.

[grbeck]

Incidents like that are rare in comparison to the regular gun crime committed every day by those who don't purchase within the law. Holmes could have just as easily tossed malotov cocktails filled with legally purchase gasoline and probably killed more people than he did.

 

Not to mention that he also probably would have injured more people, and many of them would have suffered horrific burns that left permanent scars.

 

Would this have led to calls for gasoline control and fingers pointed at Exxon, Sunoco and BP?

 

For that matter, in 1995, Timothy McVeigh killed and injured many more people than Holmes did. And yet, we didn't enact tighter controls over fertilizer and Ford Econoline cargo vans.

Edited July 31, 2012 by grbeck

[goinbroke2]

There are soft hearted people who see something firsthand and react to it. (someone killed by a drunk driver, etc) It's when this happens that the emotional element is added and rhetoric starts.

What happened was a terrible thing, no question. But think logically and not emotionally and answer the following questions;

 

Would making a background check mandatory prevented this?

Would limiting the amount of ammo purchased per visit/per month have prevented this?

Would liiiting the amount of weapons allowed per month/lifetime prevented this?

Would a completed gun ban have eliminated a dozen people being killed in a closed room by a nutjob bent on killing people?

 

Unfortunately, the answer to all is, NO.

 

Do I advocate a free for all and anybody can buy a 50 cal machine gun? Of course not. I agree every sane person has the freedom/right to own a weapon. As well as a baseball bat, gasoline, fertilizer and many other things that can potentially be dangerous or hazerdous in the "wrong" hands.

But I also agree that background checks as well as waiting periods are also not "too intrusive" or better put, are more in the public's interest.

 

as far as the NRA, stop calling everybody who doesn't agree with complete weapons bans as a "right wing, gun toting, wingnut from the NRA".

 

Nothing worse than knee-jerk reactions...on either side.

[rn4]

Not to mention that he also probably would have injured more people, and many of them would have suffered horrific burns that left permanent scars.

 

Would this have led to calls for gasoline control and fingers pointed at Exxon, Sunoco and BP?

 

For that matter, in 1995, Timothy McVeigh killed and injured many more people than Holmes did. And yet, we didn't enact tighter controls over fertilizer and Ford Econoline cargo vans.

 

Actually, there are proposals to regulate Ammonium Nitrate.

 

http://www.dhs.gov/files/laws/ammonium-nitrate-regulations.shtm

 

http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/ammonium-nitrate-security-program.shtm

[Langston Hughes]

Criminals do not wait to buy guns, they more often steal them or obtain them illegally.

Its the average guy that jumps through the hoops and pays more and gets fewer privileges.

 

Incidents like that are rare in comparison to the regular gun crime committed every day by those who don't purchase within the law. Holmes could have just as easily tossed malotov cocktails filled with legally purchase gasoline and probably killed more people than he did.

 

May I remind you that he did not choose Molotov's nor did he choose a samurai sword. He spent a period of time purhcasing his guns through the correct and proper channels. As did the Virginia tech shooter, waiting a month to purchase his second handgun as was the law. And the statement was that criminals do not wait to buy guns when in fact they do.

[grbeck]

Actually, there are proposals to regulate Ammonium Nitrate.

 

http://www.dhs.gov/f...egulations.shtm

 

http://www.dhs.gov/f...ty-program.shtm

 

I stand corrected. If these go through, terrorists will just switch to gasoline.

[grbeck]

May I remind you that he did not choose Molotov's nor did he choose a samurai sword. He spent a period of time purhcasing his guns through the correct and proper channels. As did the Virginia tech shooter, waiting a month to purchase his second handgun as was the law. And the statement was that criminals do not wait to buy guns when in fact they do.

 

The "proper and correct channels" included road blocks and checks demanded by gun-control advocates, and they still didn't stop either event.

[goinbroke2]

He wasn't a criminal at the time (criminals CAN'T buy guns) and the fact that he did not choose molotoves is a sidestep. EVERY SANE LAW ABINDING CITIZEN can buy a gun. What they do with it is up to them. the same as a car or any other instument to be used to kill. Your sidestepping the issue and blaming the tool for the damage the wingnut did. The fact that he didn't choose a molotov is irrelevent, he wanted to kill and he patiently set up a killing spree using the laws as required. He could of used a molotov or bought a little car that would fit through the doors of a mall and went on a rampage running over people on a saturday morning when the mall was full.

 

Again, it's the idiot using the gun/baseball bat/car...not the car!

 

So to be clear, "And the statement was that criminals do not wait to buy guns when in fact they do." is completely wrong. He was a legal citizen, purchased a gun, ammo etc the same as you or I would. The only difference is that he was a wackjob who went on a rampage. NOW if he tried to buy a weapon or ammo, according to law, HE WOULD BE DENIED.

So, to reiterate...legal = can buy gun

not legal = can't buy gun

 

And if he was hell bent on killing and couldn't get a gun for whatever reason, he just might of used a molotov or a car and there might be even more deaths!

 

Maybe fill a water type fire extiguisher with gas and spray down the crowd after lighting it? Steal a tractor trailer and drive it through the building in the middle of a movie? Hide underneath a bridge and chip/cut away at the foundation of a pedestal? (he had months to prepare remember)

 

Let's outlaw anything that could potentially be used as a weapon.....

[TomServo92]

 

 

 

 

May I remind you that he did not choose Molotov's nor did he choose a samurai sword. He spent a period of time purhcasing his guns through the correct and proper channels. As did the Virginia tech shooter, waiting a month to purchase his second handgun as was the law. And the statement was that criminals do not wait to buy guns when in fact they do.

 

The point I was making is that in the absence of guns being available, he could still have created just as much carnage (if not more) with other readily available material.

 

Mass killings by individuals occurred long before guns were readily available and they will continue even if they are banned.