• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gun attack at Batman film premiere in Denver [W:120]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thunder said:
is that your argument for making murder...legal?

cause it doesn't stop the sick & homicidal?
Click to expand...

Just how twisted does a mind have to be to come up with such a conclusion from saying the laws against murder didn't stop a murderer so laws against guns won't stop one either?
 
LaMidRighter said:
I look at it this way though, gang members should expect death at any time, they are engaged in a lifestyle that involves killing and being killed. It's not even IMO the same statistic as innocents who bought tickets to be entertained at a movie, kids mostly who are either working or going to school etc. but mainly trying to be good citizens. I really do wish there were seperate statistics to differentiate so that we could see the extent of innocents killed versus criminals.
Click to expand...

You do have a point there.

If only there weren't so much collateral damage in these gang wars.
 
Connery said:
This is my kind of "gun control"; after observing Mr. Holmes behavior a Gun Club owner rejected Holmes' application to join. This speaks to the heart the issue in this situation, whether someone observed and detected aberrant behavior and did something proactive about it. The issues in this thread concerning Mr. Holmes have nothing to do with gun control rather mental heath, conduct and responsibility to act.


"Aurora shooting suspect James Holmes applied to join a Colorado gun range but never became a member after the owner became concerned over his "bizarre" message and behavior. Holmes said he was not a user of illegal drugs or a convicted felon, so Rotkovich followed up by calling Holmes' apartment to invite him to a mandatory orientation the following week. Rotkovich got Holmes' answering machine and says "it was bizarre -- guttural, freakish at best." Rotkovich left two other messages but eventually told his staff to watch for Holmes at the July 1 orientation and not to accept him into the club."

Shooting suspect gun club membership rejected - Boston.com
Click to expand...
I actually am okay with restrictions on citizens who have violent schizophrenia or other dangerous disorders, or allowing citizens a VERY limited "red flag" power if they are willing to sign an affadavit and be held legally liable for their opinion after being in the presence of someone as this range operator has claimed. The only thing is "the guy creeped me out" is too subjective and thus I think there should be a high standard, hence why I favor a flag instead of downright denial for being "a little off".
 
jet57 said:
I have to say, that I have no idea what that has to do with Morgan Freeman's abilities in front of camera. Jon Voight for instance, is in my view a very very good actor; particulalry since he's gotten older and ahs been playing that "old gruff tough guy" character, but he's about as right-wing as they get: and hideously so!

I think you're trying to mix apples and oranges here.
Click to expand...

I was kind of joking -- thus the smiley face. But it's obvious that many fans DO take the political positions of artists quite seriously. Just ask Jane Fonda or the Dixie Chicks.
 
Dittohead not! said:
You do have a point there.

If only there weren't so much collateral damage in these gang wars.
Click to expand...
That's the tricky part, I do admit that. There was a funeral home fired at here in my city in a driveby, it had to be gang or wannabe related because we overall have very few of those typed of assaults. I think it's pretty stupid to spray randomly and especially callous to fire at a place containing mourners, but you too have a point, innocents caught in crossfire does skew the numbers a bit.
 
TurtleDude said:
the only thing that works to decrease the numbers of innocents killed by active shooters are armed individuals able to quickly challenge the active shooter

thus GUN FREE ZONES have been the sites for almost EVERY active shooter case going back years from Charles Whitman Jr, to the guy in the McDonalds (Huber) in California, to Patrick Purdy at a Stockton School, to that guy at Luby's in Texas before Texas had CCW permits. Many of them were schools as well
Click to expand...

So everybody is going to have the right to carry a gun, what about the protestors in front of Wall street?


I never said anything about gun free zones whether or not they exist in the mind of some nut with a gun is irrelevant.

The thing that matters is just how easy is it to buy a gun leagally in the U.S?

Now you could buy a gun from a criminal, but a criminal is not going to even meet with you without a recomindation nobody wants to go to jail for selling guns.
So, these nut jobs where do they buy 3 guns and a lot of ammunition with a background check looks like some kind of red flag would go up . that is if the background check was done properly?
Where do these nut jobs go gun shopping WALMART?

Then there is the fact of the serial numbers each gun has.:peace
 
As well, one thing I'd like to know is if this kid was on any anti-depressants, other psychotropic drugs, or even Chantix or any other medications. Many of those have nasty side effects that can often times be worse than the condition they are supposed to alleviate, this kid's break from reality almost fits that profile perfectly.
 
presluc said:
So everybody is going to have the right to carry a gun, what about the protestors in front of Wall street?


I never said anything about gun free zones whether or not they exist in the mind of some nut with a gun is irrelevant.

The thing that matters is just how easy is it to buy a gun leagally in the U.S?

Now you could buy a gun from a criminal, but a criminal is not going to even meet with you without a recomindation nobody wants to go to jail for selling guns.
So, these nut jobs where do they buy 3 guns and a lot of ammunition with a background check looks like some kind of red flag would go up . that is if the background check was done properly?
Where do these nut jobs go gun shopping WALMART?

Then there is the fact of the serial numbers each gun has.:peace
Click to expand...

1) if you actually have read my many posts on this subject I have always said that people should not carry weapons in public until and unless they are well trained.

this guy bought those guns after passing FOUR BACKGROUND CHECKS

you cannot buy a new gun from a dealer (or a used one from a dealer) without a background check

that is why I have little use for so many posts on this subject-they are filled with glaring ignorance of the actual facts
 
TurtleDude said:
the only thing that works to decrease the numbers of innocents killed by active shooters are armed individuals able to quickly challenge the active shooter
Click to expand...

Can you give us some examples of these citizen shooters who took out "active shooters"? How about in the Gabbi Giffords shooting? You realize that gun laws are all but nonexistent in AZ, right? Remember what happened there? Loughner was clubbed over the head with a folding chair and then tackled by a 74-year-old guy. How did they manage that? They took him down when he was ... wait for it ... changing magazines. Good thing he didn't have a 100-round magazine.
 
We already have a thread about whether guns save lives, don't we? Wasn't the point already made that there is no conclusive evidence one way or another?

Sure, there are examples of bad guys being taken down by armed civilians.
And then, there are examples of kids getting hold of daddy's gun and killing someone.

There are no hard and fast answers to this question.

When it comes down to a choice between more or less liberty, I'd go for the more liberty option, whether it improves on public safety or not.

But, that's just me.
 
Holmes had a high-capacity ammunition magazine in the AR-15 assault rifle and he would not have had access to this type of ammunition magazine if the old federal assault weapon ban had not expired in 2004 and fully-automatic and military-style assault weapons that fire more than 10 rounds at a time such as the AR-15 assault rifle are against the law in California.
 
TurtleDude said:
I will edify you on this

its simple

in the 1960s the dems controlled congress, senate, and the White House. But crime became a weakness for the dems and the black race riots gave Nixon and other Republicans an opening to attack a liberal supreme court, and liberal dems who didn't seem much interested in doing much about the rising crime rates

so the dems came up with a strategy using the assassination of JFK first and later the Robert Kennedy and Dr. King killings. They started using GUN CONTROL as a SHIELD against the GOP attacks. By adopting GUN control the dems could claim they were tough on crime without upsetting a big bloc of their constituents. The Gun Control Act of 1968 was their crowning Jewel is this effort


up to then, the NRA was mainly a group that trained police, hosted competitions and other such things. But many members of the NRA were able to see the dem strategy for what it was-a political ploy that had no real basis in public safety but rather a strategy that the dems were using to defend against the soft on crime GOP attacks

so the NRA and other gun groups objected publicly and loudly. They pointed out the real motivation of the dems

MORE IMPORTANTLY, the NRA and other shooting organizations got organized and political. They started lobbying and supporting pro gun candidates


this really pissed the dems off. The anti gun dems-those in the big cities where crime was out of control-realized what a formidable foe they had created with their attempt to ward off Nixon's attacks. Dem gun control schemes were introduced to harass gun owners and gun groups. How do we know this? because if you listened to the debate on the Clinton Gun ban, most of the supporters whined about the NRA rather than criminals.

The AWB and other proposals by turds like Chuck Schummer were nothing more than attempted payback against the NRA

and its fun watching people who have no clue on this issue whine about what I know.
Click to expand...



1968
The Gun Control Act of 1968 - "...was enacted for the purpose of keeping firearms out of the hands of those not legally entitled to possess them because of age, criminal background, or incompetence." -- Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms The Act regulates imported guns, expands the gun-dealer licensing and record keeping requirements, and places specific limitations on the sale of handguns. The list of persons banned from buying guns is expanded to include persons convicted of any non-business related felony, persons found to be mentally incompetent, and users of illegal drugs.
Click to expand...

Following those assassinations and the riots of 1965 and 1968, I don’t see how this 1968 Act is “political” in the sense that you raise it. Gun control in this country, as a cause for legislation goes back to II Amendment. From the GA handgun ban of 1837 (unsuccessful) to the “Black Codes” of 1865 all the way up to the 1999 Los Angeles county Gun Show Ban, such laws have shown to always be in the interest of – editing – the availability of certain firearms, and all firearms for the criminal element or the insane. It’s always been about public safety: I mean, even “The Black Codes” were sort of a stop gap designed to prevent what was thought to be a coming black uprising; which of course never happened, but therein you have an extremely conservative society acting in behalf of what they thought was the public good.

So, gun control laws are just as much a part of American history as the gun itself. I’ve never heard any credible left-wing source demanding a ban in all guns; just the stuff that ordinary people really don’t need, or the stuff that elements of our society shouldn’t have like addicts that don’t need heroin.
 
Last edited:
Swimming pools kill more children under the age of ten than gun-related accidents and assaults. But nobody cares about swimming pools.
 
AdamT said:
Can you give us some examples of these citizen shooters who took out "active shooters"? How about in the Gabbi Giffords shooting? You realize that gun laws are all but nonexistent in AZ, right? Remember what happened there? Loughner was clubbed over the head with a folding chair and then tackled by a 74-year-old guy. How did they manage that? They took him down when he was ... wait for it ... changing magazines. Good thing he didn't have a 100-round magazine.
Click to expand...

1) no one was armed in that area

2) in a church in colorado a woman with a pistol wounded the active shooter-he then killed himself

3) in another active shooter case at a school, teacher got a pistol and captured the shooter

4) in cincinnati, a killer shot a woman jogging. a guy who had a loaded pistol in his car (a gray area since there was no CCW permit at the time) chased the killer down at gun point and took him prisoner until the cops arrived.

how would a guy with a 100 round magazine been able to get that close to Giffords?

how was the Aurora shooter able to exit an emergency exit and come back in without alarms being sounded

why did he choose a gun free zone
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Swimming pools kill more children under the age of ten than gun-related accidents and assaults. But nobody cares about swimming pools.
Click to expand...

If only conservatives owned swimming pools it would be high on the dems agenda.
 
Back to the original topic. I am relieved that this was probably not the action of a politically partisan offender. The OP and some other hacks were champing at the bit to score points by attempting to politicize the issue.

We are a deeply divided nation. There are fewer things then that would drive the wedge further.
 
Last edited:
jet57 said:
Following those assassinations and the riots of 1965 and 1968, I don’t see how this 1968 Act is “political” in the sense that you raise it. Gun control in this country, as a cause for legislation goes back to II Amendment. From the GA handgun ban of 1837 (unsuccessful) to the “Black Codes” of 1865 all the way up to the 1999 Los Angeles county Gun Show Ban, such laws have shown to always be in the interest of – editing – the availability of certain firearms, and all firearms for the criminal element or the insane. It’s always been about public safety: I mean, even “The Black Codes” were sort of a stop gap designed to prevent what was thought to be a coming black uprising; which of course never happened, but therein you have an extremely conservative society acting in behalf of what they thought was the public good.

So, gun control laws are just as much a part of American history as the gun itself. I’ve never heard any credible left-wing source demanding a ban in all guns; just the stuff that ordinary people really don’t need, or the stuff that elements of our society shouldn’t have like addicts that don’t need heroin.
Click to expand...

you make some valid points

the first round of gun control was directed at freed slaves

the second major wave was directed at "Papist" immigrants from places like Ireland and Italy. (the sullivan law was passed to protect the Irish cops in NYC who were shaking down Italian Longshoremen)

fear of black criminals with guns is a major driving force behind suburban housewife support for gun control
 
ThirdTerm said:
Holmes had a high-capacity ammunition magazine in the AR-15 assault rifle and he would not have had access to this type of ammunition magazine if the old federal assault weapon ban had not expired in 2004 and fully-automatic and military-style assault weapons that fire more than 10 rounds at a time such as the AR-15 assault rifle are against the law in California.
Click to expand...

You rasie an excellent point, and I have argued that for some time. This guy obviously had more than one 30 round clip. People don't need 30 round clips, that stuff is for military work, but, like all his body armor, he bought that stuff online, and had it dropped off at his door!

You shouldn't be able to get that junk anywhere! What are doing? going to the range for some rapid fire fun? I mean, it's silly, impracticle for general society, and as we have known for some time now - extremely dangerous! A point that has just been driven home to our hearts with profound accuracy.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I actually am okay with restrictions on citizens who have violent schizophrenia or other dangerous disorders, or allowing citizens a VERY limited "red flag" power if they are willing to sign an affadavit and be held legally liable for their opinion after being in the presence of someone as this range operator has claimed. The only thing is "the guy creeped me out" is too subjective and thus I think there should be a high standard, hence why I favor a flag instead of downright denial for being "a little off".
Click to expand...

The gun club is a private concern as far as I understand the situation. The owner made a judgement call; it was his right to do so and more importantly his responsibility to the other members of the club. This was a responsible and level headed act and more people should act within their social conscience in these and similar matters.
 
TurtleDude said:
1) if you actually have read my many posts on this subject I have always said that people should not carry weapons in public until and unless they are well trained. this guy bought those guns after passing FOUR BACKGROUND CHECKS you cannot buy a new gun from a dealer (or a used one from a dealer) without a background check that is why I have little use for so many posts on this subject-they are filled with glaring ignorance of the actual facts
Click to expand...
First of all it is you who said armed response to the active shooter not I.

Second of all evedently 4 Background checks is not good enough. They said the same about the Virginia Tech shooter something about paperwork and red tape.

I can not speak for others but in a country where you have to take a drivers test before you get a drivers licence , but if your background is good you can buy 3 guns and plenty of ammunition no problem.

First of all papers can be forged sexcond of all if a gun dealer wants to make money he can "let it slide do the background later" Just as long as the sale goes through

. No need making it too difficult for a person to buy guns after all the 2nd amendment stands firm , hasn't been changed that much since the Brady bill but it stands. People have changed though there are more crazy disturbed people out there.

I once made a prediction during a debate just after the Virginia Tech killings I'd hope I was wrong but I said there would be another nut with a gun and some innocent dead people left behind. I pray I am wrong but if nothing in gun control changes there will be another nut with a gun leaving innocent people dead.
 
Last edited:
Connery said:
The gun club is a private concern as far as I understand the situation. The owner made a judgement call; it was his right to do so and more importantly his responsibility to the other members of the club. This was a responsible and level headed act and more people should act within their social conscience in these and similar matters.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. Still, if he reports something like that to the police they don't have enough to obtain a warrant or to set up surveillance. If someone is judged to be actively suspicious as this range owner judged there should be some standard to tell some kind of authorities, "Hey, might want to keep an eye on this one". I mean, we have a flagging system for books and other purchases so why not that really freaky individual that is borderline.
 
TurtleDude said:
you make some valid points

the first round of gun control was directed at freed slaves

the second major wave was directed at "Papist" immigrants from places like Ireland and Italy. (the sullivan law was passed to protect the Irish cops in NYC who were shaking down Italian Longshoremen)

fear of black criminals with guns is a major driving force behind suburban housewife support for gun control
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree with you. The piont we've reached ion our society however is; we gotta do something to stem the tide. I mean, it's getting nothing but crazier. For instance, I bought my M1 carbine before the Calif ban on assault weapons, and this state, anything over a 10 round clip is illegal. Moreover, at our public ranges, one has to wait a full 3 seconds between rounds. I don't see how those kinds of controls does anything but simply put everybody on notice.

I mean; look: if something were to really go down, requiring every able bodied guy / gal . . . (oops), don't you think that general recruitment into instant militias and access to armories would happen forthwith? (where ya' get all the toys ya' need) I just think that it only makes good sense; particulalry in urban and heavily populated suburban areas to quell the John Wayne exageration which seems to be a driving force in conservative circles.
 
jet57 said:
You rasie an excellent point, and I have argued that for some time. This guy obviously had more than one 30 round clip. People don't need 30 round clips, that stuff is for military work, but, like all his body armor, he bought that stuff online, and had it dropped off at his door!

You shouldn't be able to get that junk anywhere! What are doing? going to the range for some rapid fire fun? I mean, it's silly, impracticle for general society, and as we have known for some time now - extremely dangerous! A point that has just been driven home to our hearts with profound accuracy.
Click to expand...


the 30 round magazine is standard issue for police and military. that alone makes it useful and proper for civilians to have it

and competition shooters use Beta C mags.

in most cases a C mag is too bulky for the sort of stuff criminals want to do
 
presluc said:
First of all it is you who said armed response to the active shooter not I.

Second of all evedently 4 Background checks is not good enough. They said the same about the Virginia Tech shooter something about paperwork and red tape.

I can not speak for others but in a country where you have to take a drivers test before you get a drivers licence , but if your background is good you can buy 3 guns and plenty of ammunition no problem.

First of all papers can be forged sexcond of all if a gun dealer wants to make money he can "let it slide do the background later" Just as long as the sale goes through

. No need making it too difficult for a person to buy guns after all the 2nd amendment stands firm , hasn't been changed that much since the Brady bill but it stands. People have changed though there are more crazy disturbed people out there.

I once made a prediction during a debate just after the Virginia Tech killings I'd hope I was wrong but I said there would be another nut with a gun and some innocent dead people left behind. I pray I am wrong but if nothing in gun control changes there will be another nut with a gun leaving innocent people dead.
Click to expand...


so if a person has a clean record and no court history of mental incompetence just what is your solution

if you buy more than one handgun within 5 business days from the same dealer the ATF has to be notified.

You seem to be one of those people who cannot fathom a problem without a tidy neat packaged solution

in this case there is none and many of us realize that rather than flying off the handle and screaming that WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING
 
jet57 said:
Following those assassinations and the riots of 1965 and 1968, I don’t see how this 1968 Act is “political” in the sense that you raise it. Gun control in this country, as a cause for legislation goes back to II Amendment. From the GA handgun ban of 1837 (unsuccessful) to the “Black Codes” of 1865 all the way up to the 1999 Los Angeles county Gun Show Ban, such laws have shown to always be in the interest of – editing – the availability of certain firearms, and all firearms for the criminal element or the insane. It’s always been about public safety: I mean, even “The Black Codes” were sort of a stop gap designed to prevent what was thought to be a coming black uprising; which of course never happened, but therein you have an extremely conservative society acting in behalf of what they thought was the public good.

So, gun control laws are just as much a part of American history as the gun itself. I’ve never heard any credible left-wing source demanding a ban in all guns; just the stuff that ordinary people really don’t need, or the stuff that elements of our society shouldn’t have like addicts that don’t need heroin.
Click to expand...

Thank you, I've been waiting for someone to bring that up.

Seems, like everytime I mention a tighter gun control somebody automaticly brands me as anti gun, or thinks I want to do away with all guns in America .

This is simply not true I can not speak for others who want stricter gun control but for me I say put the guns in the hands of responsible honest people and take them away from nut jobs by making it harder for them to get.:peace
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom