12 shot dead at in Aurora, Colorado

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

The Aurora assailant purchased 4 guns and 6,000 rounds of ammo in a two-month period, including an assault rifle. Legally.

Though the US contains enough legal firearms for every citizen to have a gun, the percentage of Americans who own firearms is declining. It was one out of two in the 1970s and now it's about one in five, and this is after 30 years of declining regulations. It gets easier and easier to buy firearms, and yet fewer Americans are buying them. So the firearm industry depends on 20 percent of the nation to keep them profitable, as most of these gun owners own more than one firearm (quick poll of the DT gun owners- how many of you own more than one firearm? You can give props to the firearm industry for their excellent manipulation of your consumer habits. You did exactly what they want you to do.). So they're thrilled when someone like Holmes buys 4 weapons and thousands of rounds of ammo in a two-month period.

So the firearm industry gets White America worked up over omigawd the brown guy in the White House is going to take our guns away and gun owners obediently file out to buy more firearms, ammunition, whatever the gun industry tells them is going to be taken away from them. And there's not an iota of truth to any of the lies but gun owners are easily manipulated by fear.

And so people like Holmes can purchase 4 guns and 6000 rounds of ammunition in a two-month period, including an assault rifle and there was no way to flag the fact that a guy was accumulating a ridonkuolous amount of firepower or to stop him. And a six-year-old is dead and her mother lies paralyzed in a hospital, still unaware she will never see her child again. And that's just one of the victims.

The fact that the NRA has endorsed Romney, who has signed gun-control legislation (a ban on assault weapons), and not Obama, who has never signed gun-control legislation, nor has he made any effort to push legislation in the past 4 years, should make it really clear that it's not about "freedom" or "safety." It's about business. And corporations are people my friend. What's a six-year-old's life compared to the rights of industry?

It's always about business..I just can't understand why any normal citizen needs an assault weapon with a 30 round or more clip, a shotgun, a couple pistols...Isn't a pistol or two for protection enough?...In VA recently they lifted the one gun a month law, now you can buy as many as you want..
One gun a month wasn't enough!...wtf needs one gun a month let alone unlimited per month...I'm not opposed to people owning guns, just be reasonable..My son-in-law has 3 shotguns and a pistol..He and the two grandsons are hunters, and good ones i might add..I had an AK-47, .357 magnum and a .22 rifle...came by them from a friend and they were in storage for years, never used by me..except the .22...sold all three about 3 years ago to gun shop..all i have now is a hunting knife and a filet knife i use if i ever catch any big bass..

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

here's an excerpt from an article about crime stats:


'The last time the crime rate for serious crime – murder, rape, robbery, assault – fell to these levels, gasoline cost 29 cents a gallon and the average income for a working American was $5,807.
That was 1963.

In the past 20 years, for instance, the murder rate in the United States has dropped by almost half, from 9.8 per 100,000 people in 1991 to 5.0 in 2009. Meanwhile, robberies were down 10 percent in 2010 from the year before and 8 percent in 2009.'

Good. Then let's help it along in a big way, by reinstituting the assault rifle ban. Nobody needs an assault rifle any more than they need bazookas or tanks. I'm all in favor of purchasing pistols, automatics and hunting rifles. But I want a waiting period on everything, and bans on large magazines.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Riot

Good. Then let's help it along in a big way, by reinstituting the assault rifle ban. Nobody needs an assault rifle any more than they need bazookas or tanks. I'm all in favor of purchasing pistols, automatics and hunting rifles. But I want a waiting period on everything, and bans on large magazines.

That's what i was trying to say in my mumbled post...you aced it...

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by bigrun

It's always about business..I just can't understand why any normal citizen needs an assault weapon with a 30 round or more clip, a shotgun, a couple pistols...Isn't a pistol or two for protection enough?...In VA recently they lifted the one gun a month law, now you can buy as many as you want..
One gun a month wasn't enough!...wtf needs one gun a month let alone unlimited per month...I'm not opposed to people owning guns, just be reasonable..My son-in-law has 3 shotguns and a pistol..He and the two grandsons are hunters, and good ones i might add..I had an AK-47, .357 magnum and a .22 rifle...came by them from a friend and they were in storage for years, never used by me..except the .22...sold all three about 3 years ago to gun shop..all i have now is a hunting knife and a filet knife i use if i ever catch any big bass..

so, who gets to decide what's reasonable? i don't find the guns i own an unreasonable amount. they're for different uses, they're different types, different calibres.
and here's a newsflash for you. the only people who will be affected by those laws and limits are those who will follow the law. those hell bent on killing, robbing, committing crimes-it won't affect them. just people like me who aren't scofflaws.
and had holmes been unable to get guns, he'd have done something else. like mcveigh did in okla city.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

so, who gets to decide what's reasonable?

We do. The citizens of the United States.

In fact, let's vote on it, via our representatives in Congress. Let's vote on a ban on assault rifles.

and here's a newsflash for you. the only people who will be affected by those laws and limits are those who will follow the law. those hell bent on killing, robbing, committing crimes-it won't affect them.

Proven wrong. Look at the crime statistics of places where those laws are stricter than the US. If they can't obtain assault rifles and 30-shot magazines, they can't use them on their fellow citizens. If they can't obtain automatic pistols, and handguns, they don't use them on their fellow citizens.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Danzig

so, who gets to decide what's reasonable? i don't find the guns i own an unreasonable amount. they're for different uses, they're different types, different calibres.
and here's a newsflash for you. the only people who will be affected by those laws and limits are those who will follow the law. those hell bent on killing, robbing, committing crimes-it won't affect them. just people like me who aren't scofflaws.
and had holmes been unable to get guns, he'd have done something else. like mcveigh did in okla city.

so, who gets to decide what's reasonable? i don't find the guns i own an unreasonable amount. they're for different uses, they're different types, different calibres.

Fine, but you didn't buy all of them in one month i'm guessing...The reason VA passed one gun a month long ago was because many of VA purchased guns were showing up in crimes in NY...think they used to call I95 the gun freeway...

and here's a newsflash for you. the only people who will be affected by those laws and limits are those who will follow the law. those hell bent on killing, robbing, committing crimes-it won't affect them. just people like me who aren't scofflaws.
and had holmes been unable to get guns, he'd have done something else. like mcveigh did in okla city.

One gun a month not enough for those who follow the law?

No one, nothing will ever stop the crazies of the world, McVeigh,Nidal Hasan, Charles Whitman, et al from doing their destruction..

[Riot]

"Guns don't kill people. People who have access to guns kill people".
----------------------------------

"The U.S. gun homicide rate is 20 times the combined rate of other western nations."

Jim Moran on Tuesday, January 10th, 2012 in a newspaper column.

Rep. Jim Moran says U.S. gun homicide rate 20 times higher than other western nations

PolitiFact says: Mostly True

U.S. Rep. Jim Moran marked the first anniversary of the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona with a call for more gun control.

"The U.S. gun homicide rate is 20 times the combined rate of other western nations," Moran, D-8th, wrote in a Jan. 10 column that ran in the Falls Church News-Press.

That statistic caught our eye. We wondered if Moran is right.

A Moran spokeswoman told us the congressman’s claim is based on a study of the homicide rates of wealthy nations in 2003, conducted by the UCLA School of Public Health. The report, published in 2010, uses data from the World Health Organization to compare gun-related homicide, gun-related suicide and unintentional and undetermined gun deaths for all ages and both sexes.

Vital statistics from the U.S. were compared to those from 22 other high-income countries with populations over 1 million people that reported causes of mortality to WHO for 2003. Researchers relied on The World Bank’s definition of a high income nation, which included countries that had a gross national income per capita of $12,276 or more for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011.

In addition to the U.S., the study included Australia, Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom (England and Wales), United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) and United Kingdom (Scotland).

Researchers determined that the rate of homicides with guns in the U.S. was 4.1 per 100,000 people; the same rate combining the 22 other countries was 0.2 per 100,000 in 2003.

The rate of homicides using guns in the U.S. was 19.5 times the rate of the other countries. Moran, rounding up, correctly repeated that factoid.

We decided to see if there were more recent numbers than 2003. U.N. and national statistics for those same countries showed the gap closed. The most recent data, mostly from 2009, shows a gun homicide rate of 3.0 per 100,000 people in the U.S. and 0.2 in the 22 other countries used in the firearm fatality study. The U.S., with its decrease, had a rate around 15 times those of other countries.

Next, we moved away from numbers for a second and examined the terminology Moran used in his column. It is imprecise.

The congressman wrote that the U.S. gun homicide rate is 20 times higher "than other western nations." But in fact, he was comparing them to them a selective group of wealthy nations. And not all them -- such as Japan -- are typically considered a "western nation."

The term "western nation" is not listed in Webster’s New World College Dictionary and we found a range of definitions online.

Most commonly, the term is used to describe countries where Western Europeans have settled or have influence. We tried to come up with a list of such nations and settled on the 28 countries that are NATO members.

The most recent gun-related homicide rate for the U.S. was 3.0 per 100,000 compared to an 0.3 for the rest of the NATO nations. The U.S. rate was 10 times higher.

Our ruling:

Moran, calling for stronger gun regulations, wrote "The U.S. gun homicide rate is 20 times the combined rate of other western nations."

Moran used the right number from a report based on 2003 data. But the researchers did not claim to analyze "western nations," they compared gun homicide rates in 23 "populous, high income" countries, including Japan.

If you compare the most recent data on the same group of nations, mostly based on 2009 statistics, the U.S. gun homicide rate is 15 times higher then the other countries. The number fell 10 times as high when we defined the inexact term of "western nations" as countries belonging to NATO.

So Moran’s figures are outdated and on the high side. His terminology is loose. But his point -- that gun homicide rates in the U.S. tower over those of other wealthy European nations -- holds up.

We rate the statement Mostly True.

[Riot]

AURORA, Colo. — New details about the midnight-movie shooting rampage here suggest that the death toll could have been even worse, as the gunman’s semiautomatic assault rifle jammed and prevented him from emptying a 100-round clip of ammunition, a law enforcement source said Sunday.

... snip ...

The law enforcement source, who is close to the investigation but not authorized to speak publicly, said something went awry in the killer’s planned assault at the Century 16 theater during the midnight screening Friday of the Batman movie “The Dark Knight Rises.” Police said the alleged gunman had three weapons: a Remington shotgun, a Smith & Wesson M&P assault rifle, and a Glock 40-caliber handgun.

The semiautomatic assault rifle, which is akin to an AR-15 and is a civilian version of the military’s M-16, could fire 50 to 60 rounds per minute, and is designed to hold large ammunition clips. Holmes allegedly had obtained a 100-round drum magazine that attached to the weapon, the source said, but that such large magazines are notorious for jamming.

The law enforcement official said authorities believe Holmes first used the shotgun — some victims in the hospital have buckshot wounds — and then began using the assault rifle, which jammed. Then he resorted to the handgun.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...N2W_story.html

Holmes will probably be filing a liability lawsuit against S&W for selling him a defective product!

[Danzig]

[quote=bigrun;876778]Fine, but you didn't buy all of them in one month i'm guessing...The reason VA passed one gun a month long ago was because many of VA purchased guns were showing up in crimes in NY...think they used to call I95 the gun freeway...



One gun a month not enough for those who follow the law?

No one, nothing will ever stop the crazies of the world, McVeigh,Nidal Hasan, Charles Whitman, et al from doing their destruction..[/QUOTE]

that's exactly right. so why the hand-wringing and suggestions for tougher laws? exactly who will be affected? not the ones they're trying to stop, that's for sure.
this has more to do with people wanting to be able to control everyone, and everything, and leave absolutely nothing to chance. good luck with that. tragedies will still occur. and just like all the others, they'll be senseless and leave people wondering why.
if people truly want to see something change, perhaps people should encourage those with loony relatives to call someone. the guys mother didn't sound surprised to know he did something. why did she choose to do nothing?

Originally Posted by Danzig

if people truly want to see something change, perhaps people should encourage those with loony relatives to call someone.

Not enough telephone capacity in the US for that!

[bigrun]

[quote=Danzig;876805]

Originally Posted by bigrun

Fine, but you didn't buy all of them in one month i'm guessing...The reason VA passed one gun a month long ago was because many of VA purchased guns were showing up in crimes in NY...think they used to call I95 the gun freeway...



One gun a month not enough for those who follow the law?

No one, nothing will ever stop the crazies of the world, McVeigh,Nidal Hasan, Charles Whitman, et al from doing their destruction..[/QUOTE]

that's exactly right. so why the hand-wringing and suggestions for tougher laws? exactly who will be affected? not the ones they're trying to stop, that's for sure.
this has more to do with people wanting to be able to control everyone, and everything, and leave absolutely nothing to chance. good luck with that. tragedies will still occur. and just like all the others, they'll be senseless and leave people wondering why.
if people truly want to see something change, perhaps people should encourage those with loony relatives to call someone. the guys mother didn't sound surprised to know he did something. why did she choose to do nothing?

One gun a month not enough for those who follow the law?

How is limiting one gun a month a tough law?

[AlreadyHome]

fkn idiot,i'm glad he got busted,my prayers got out to the family and all involve


justice will be serv.

[Danzig]

[quote=bigrun;876819]

Originally Posted by Danzig

How is limiting one gun a month a tough law?

it's not. again, people like me would follow it. those bent on killing would not. i'm not sure what exactly you think that would accomplish anyway?
and yes, to answer an earlier question-we have aquired more than one gun in a month before. when tony's grandfather passed, we received all his guns. and another time we won one, and bought another, at a wildlife banquet/auction.
the ownership of guns doesn't make one a criminal, or mean someone may be in future. gun laws affect the law-abiding, not the criminals. most of us would still not be murderers if there was no law against it. same as stealing. it provides punishments for those who will do so. gun laws aren't the same thing at all.

basically, gun opponents know they don't have a way to get tougher laws passed, so when the occasional nutjob comes along, out they come.
had there been laws against large capacity magazines, he'd have bought more weapons. it wouldn't have changed a thing. nor would making stricter laws mean that lunatics would suddenly be sane.

had he been banned from buying, this tragedy would still have happened, it just wouldn't have been by using guns.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Ocala Mike

Not enough telephone capacity in the US for that!

there are people who need help; making it a joke is just a sign that mental illness still isn't taken seriously. but then, your post before this one was beyond crass, so i'm not surprised.

[bigrun]

Watching ABC eve news..Interviewed police chief, his daughter was at the Batman movie but a different theater...They showed clips of Holmes as a teenager giving a talk, certain scenes to me, he looks a little like Mark Zuckerberg. or maybe not..
Also mentioned that gun shops out number McDonalds 9-1.

[bigrun]

[quote=Danzig;876836]

Originally Posted by bigrun

it's not. again, people like me would follow it. those bent on killing would not. i'm not sure what exactly you think that would accomplish anyway?
and yes, to answer an earlier question-we have aquired more than one gun in a month before. when tony's grandfather passed, we received all his guns. and another time we won one, and bought another, at a wildlife banquet/auction.
the ownership of guns doesn't make one a criminal, or mean someone may be in future. gun laws affect the law-abiding, not the criminals. most of us would still not be murderers if there was no law against it. same as stealing. it provides punishments for those who will do so. gun laws aren't the same thing at all.

basically, gun opponents know they don't have a way to get tougher laws passed, so when the occasional nutjob comes along, out they come.
had there been laws against large capacity magazines, he'd have bought more weapons. it wouldn't have changed a thing. nor would making stricter laws mean that lunatics would suddenly be sane.

had he been banned from buying, this tragedy would still have happened, it just wouldn't have been by using guns.

Well it might help prevent someone with the proper credentials from buying couple thousand guns and selling them to the highest bidder in states like NY..

Not talking about the loon fringe just the 'honest' folks out to make a buck...or two...

[Danzig]

[quote=bigrun;876843]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Well it might help prevent someone with the proper credentials from buying couple thousand guns and selling them to the highest bidder in states like NY..

Not talking about the loon fringe just the 'honest' folks out to make a buck...or two...

the only group i know of selling tons of guns are the feds, fast and furious.

[AlreadyHome]

[quote=Danzig;876888]

Originally Posted by bigrun

the only group i know of selling tons of guns are the feds, fast and furious.

fast and furious is a movie ......

about the guns, thats in the past
feds gotta eat it.....

[Danzig]

[quote=AlreadyHome;876890]

Originally Posted by Danzig

fast and furious is a movie ......

about the guns, thats in the past feds gotta eat it.....