• 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.
presluc said:
Common sense is a good phrase too bad it isn't used as often in America today.

When every year or so some nut comes out with guns or a gun and kills innocent people .
One does not have to have a high IQ. to figure out there's something about selling guns to weirdos that isn't right.
So is the background checks working?
If they were this conversation wouldn't be necessary.

So is it time for the NRA to stop collecting money, stop making speeches and get off their lazy ass and do something?
Yes I would say it is.:peace
Click to expand...

You seem reluctant to accept the inescapable fact as long as people are alive, there are going to be murders. Sometimes one or two victims and sometimes many more. It doesn't mean we do not seek ways to prevent them but it does mean realizing **** happens.
 
Connery said:
A report could be made to the authorities, however, the standards may be more stringent requiring there must be an overt act where the person be placed under observation for 72 hours as the conduct may be indicative of someone who may want to hurt themselves or others. Moreover, I agree that monitoring for items that could be used to harm others should be in place and utilized.
Click to expand...
Pretty much what I thought. I don't think "just anybody" should be monitored or their purchases, however if there is a reasonable suspicion, even by a citizen's own judgement I think it should be easier to monitor a specific individual and their purchases. Like many other mass murders there were signs that something wasn't quite right, but nobody did anything about it.
 
I just wonder what "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is so difficult for the left to understand?

They want to make you register every gun.

They want to make you be limited on how many you can buy, and how much ammo you can buy.

They want to limit the size of the weapons you are able to own.

They want to limit the type of weapon you can own.

They want to limit the action of the weapons you own.

They want to limit the type of stock on the weapon you own.

They want to make it illegal for you to silence the weapon you own.

Oh well, so much for "shall not be infringed."
 
dontworrybehappy said:
I just wonder what "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is so difficult for the left to understand?

They want to make you register every gun.

They want to make you be limited on how many you can buy, and how much ammo you can buy.

They want to limit the size of the weapons you are able to own.

They want to limit the type of weapon you can own.

They want to limit the action of the weapons you own.

They want to limit the type of stock on the weapon you own.

They want to make it illegal for you to silence the weapon you own.

Oh well, so much for "shall not be infringed."
Click to expand...

I know, isn't it ridiculous? Can you believe that Americans can't freely build nuclear weapons? The second amendment clearly protects the ownership of weapons. I need my nuclear weapon for self-defense.

You, of course, agree that we should be able to own nuclear weapons, right? Because, like you said, liberals want to "limit the type of weapon you can own."
 
Mustachio said:
I think this is a separate debate that isn't really that important in this matter. Throughout the history of this country, many of our citizens have taken it upon themselves to own guns and take advantage of advanced weapons technology. There will always be the debate of whether or not the advantages of protecting gun ownership outweigh the disadvantages, as your examples illustrate.

I think this is a different debate, because we're talking about a crazy 24 year old who purchased thousands of rounds of ammunition and a semi-automatic assault rifle that has no purpose other than to kill human beings. There are no advantages of allowing anybody who has an internet connection to stockpile assault weapons and ammunition. What would be the problem with restricting the sale of guns like this? When you mentioned the citizens who used guns to prevent or stop violent attacks, did any of them need 6,000 rounds of ammunition and a semi-automatic assault rifle?
Click to expand...

How much is a stockpile and what is wrong with it? I own 3 different kinds of shovels, 5, if you count trowels. Am I stockpiling shovels? Am I stupid for having more than one kind? Why is it antigun freaks and the media always refer to guns as being stockpiled? Or cached? My wife has more shoes than I have guns, a hell of lot more, but no one would refer to them as a "shoe cache". "Stockpile" and "cache" really aren't quantitative, are they? Their buzzwords, emoto-words to manipulate the minds of the masses.

Does anyone need to buy 6,000 round for personal defense? Depends, how many types of guns are you going to buy for and for how long? And by the way, Holmes didn't use 6,000 rounds, did he? So that hysterical argument is superfluous. How many rounds did he fire in the theater? You don't know, do you? It wasn't 6,000, so stop saying that.

Wasn't it earlier that this month the GOP found Holder in contempt of congress because they were disgusted with his oversight of a program that allowed weapons like this to fall into the hands of criminals? Why was it that in that case conservatives acknowledged that the availability of these guns would cause or increase senseless violence and could not be permitted to fall into the wrong hands, but here we are a few weeks later and conservatives have already slipped back into "guns don't kill people, people kill people" mode?
Click to expand...

Do try to keep up, Mustachio. Legal gun dealers are not selling guns to people illegally. Holmes had to pass background checks, he passed. Unless you have information I don't, the apples to donkey balls comparison you are trying to make would necessitate the ATF to do a background check on the narcotraficantes they sold the guns to. I guessing that the sicarios who bought the illegal guns failed to qualify under federal law. How does this compare with Holmes? It's a stretch and you failed.

We don't know yet that Holmes is insane. We are hearing that he has no criminal record and no history of mental illness. We know that he could easily have purchased these guns illegally, the ammunition as well. So what exactly are you saying?

Would you stop with assault rifle thing? We know that you don't know what you are talking about. Your aversion to public ownership of AR-15 guns is because (list them all, please)?

An AR-15 can be excellent for home defense and with the right defensive load can be safer for innocents in other rooms and for neighbors over a pistol shooting JHP or ball. But you want to ban assault weapons because...?

Though you didn't bring it up let's address the drum magazine. I personally don't care if people want to own them. You couldn't give me one. I certainly would never depend on one to protect me or mine. They jam. Shooters know they jam. I wasn't surprised to read that the drum mag jammed on Holmes. If you are planning to shoot at me I'd want you to have a gun or magazine that is known to jam.
 
Last edited:
presluc said:
I don't think I'm the only American that wants stricter gu8n control , run the numbers try using all political parties.

Anyone with a brain might take into consideration, if someone is planning to kill someone with a gun making it difficult to aquire a gun would be a priority.:peace
Click to expand...

Tell us where you live and I'll start a collection to have a nice permanent sign for your house saying, "The Occupants Are Not Armed. We Do Not Believe in Civilian Gun Ownership." We'll have one made for your cars as well and maybe a some buttons made for you and your family to wear.
 
An AR-15 can be excellent for home defense and with the right defensive load can be safer for innocents in other rooms and for neighbors over a pistol shooting JHP or ball.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with that, but the rest of the post is good. I think the ar15 is a great all-around rifle with countless possible accessories/modifications, but it would be a very poor choice for home defense.
 
Risky Thicket said:
How much is a stockpile and what is wrong with it? I own 3 different kinds of shovels, 5, if you count trowels. Am I stockpiling shovels? Am I stupid for having more than one kind? Why is it antigun freaks and the media always refer to guns as being stockpiled? Or cached? My wife has more shoes than I have guns, a hell of lot more, but no one would refer to them as a "shoe cache". "Stockpile" and "cache" really aren't quantitative, are they? Their buzzwords, emoto-words to manipulate the minds of the masses.

Do try to keep up, Mustachio. Legal gun dealers are not selling guns to people illegally. Holmes had to pass background checks, he passed. Unless you have information I don't, the apples to donkey balls comparison you are trying to make would necessitate the AFT to do a background check on the narcotraficantes they sold the guns to. I guessing that the sicarios who bought the illegal guns failed to qualify under federal law. How does this compare with Holmes? It's a stretch and you failed.

We don't know yet that Holmes is insane. We are hearing that he has no criminal record and no history of mental illness. We know that he could easily have purchased these guns legally, the ammunition as well. So what exactly are you saying?
Click to expand...

Holmes, by my definition, is insane. There are no sane people who give up their entire lives at the age of 24 in order to kill a lot of innocent people. He's also stupid by my definition, but that's not the point.

Secondly, my oldest brother has about a hundred pairs of shoes. I find it appalling and have many times used the words "stockpile" and "cache" in reference to them. Your comments are betraying your bias, which is obviously that you hate tree huggers, hippies, liberals, those who drop out, turn on, tune in, go green, eat flax seed and oppose guns. But here's the thing: we all agree that the government should prohibit some weapons. We might not agree on which ones, but we all agree that certain things (like nuclear weapons) we shouldn't be allowed to have no matter how many background checks we pass. This is the argument. It's so dishonest to claim that this debate is one side trying to take away your guns and the other side is the constitutional group of patriots trying to defend everybody's freedom. Of course we're not going to agree on anything when you go into it with that mindset.

Again, with the Holder thing: two weeks ago conservatives acknowledge that semi-automatic rifles are dangerous and shouldn't fall into the wrong hands. Now, suddenly, gun control is back in the news with this issue and everybody is quick to say "there's nothing wrong with these weapons and prohibiting them will only make things worse." Well, I think, and many others think, that we should be more careful, have a more thorough process, and try to prevent these things from happening.

I'm going to get frozen yogurt now. I'm sorry I won't be able to argue back.
 
Mustachio said:
I know, isn't it ridiculous? Can you believe that Americans can't freely build nuclear weapons? The second amendment clearly protects the ownership of weapons. I need my nuclear weapon for self-defense.

You, of course, agree that we should be able to own nuclear weapons, right? Because, like you said, liberals want to "limit the type of weapon you can own."
Click to expand...

Yea, people should be able to use nuclear weapons. That's what I meant when I said type. I couldn't have possibly meant assault rifle, handgun, etc.

You wonder how some people manage to raise a fork to their mouth every day when they are unable to put together a coherent argument. That's ok, another desperate reach. I see lots of desperation on the left, and tons of laughing on the right.
 
Last edited:
Mustachio said:
Holmes, by my definition, is insane. There are no sane people who give up their entire lives at the age of 24 in order to kill a lot of innocent people. He's also stupid by my definition, but that's not the point.

Secondly, my oldest brother has about a hundred pairs of shoes. I find it appalling and have many times used the words "stockpile" and "cache" in reference to them. Your comments are betraying your bias, which is obviously that you hate tree huggers, hippies, liberals, those who drop out, turn on, tune in, go green, eat flax seed and oppose guns. But here's the thing: we all agree that the government should prohibit some weapons. We might not agree on which ones, but we all agree that certain things (like nuclear weapons) we shouldn't be allowed to have no matter how many background checks we pass. This is the argument. It's so dishonest to claim that this debate is one side trying to take away your guns and the other side is the constitutional group of patriots trying to defend everybody's freedom. Of course we're not going to agree on anything when you go into it with that mindset.

Again, with the Holder thing: two weeks ago conservatives acknowledge that semi-automatic rifles are dangerous and shouldn't fall into the wrong hands. Now, suddenly, gun control is back in the news with this issue and everybody is quick to say "there's nothing wrong with these weapons and prohibiting them will only make things worse." Well, I think, and many others think, that we should be more careful, have a more thorough process, and try to prevent these things from happening.

I'm going to get frozen yogurt now. I'm sorry I won't be able to argue back.
Click to expand...

No offense to your brother or you, but guys who stockpile shoes like that have always had....peculiarities.......
 
Video has emerged of Colorado movie theater massacre suspect James Holmes addressing his peers at a science camp in San Diego.

It shows Holmes, then 18, at a Miramar College science camp discussing “temporal illusions,” which he explains as “an illusion that allows you to change the past,” and “subjective experience, which is what takes place inside the mind as opposed to the external world.”



Video shows (scroll down)
 
presluc said:
I don't think I'm the only American that wants stricter gu8n control , run the numbers try using all political parties.

Anyone with a brain might take into consideration, if someone is planning to kill someone with a gun making it difficult to aquire a gun would be a priority.:peace
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct!!! If Holmes had gone online and saw the stricter gun control laws he would have just given up, concentrated on school, graduated, get married, and have a family.

If you would like, I will pay for your airfare to Aurora so you can help them calm down by pointing out this only happened because of lax gun laws. I will also pay for your medical care from their reactions.

Your post is like it is coming from a battery operated doll living in a snow globe that faces a poster of The Beach.
 
Mya said:
Video has emerged of Colorado movie theater massacre suspect James Holmes addressing his peers at a science camp in San Diego.

It shows Holmes, then 18, at a Miramar College science camp discussing “temporal illusions,” which he explains as “an illusion that allows you to change the past,” and “subjective experience, which is what takes place inside the mind as opposed to the external world.”



Video shows (scroll down)
Click to expand...

From what you posted there is nothing unusual about what he said.
 
TurtleDude said:
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
Click to expand...

Sorry, I just don't see the usefulnes of a 30 rounder for the public: we've just seen profound and compelling evidence of why. Competition shooting can be done equally well with 10 round mags. I mean, check this out: The Beta Company | BETA MAG C-MAG | 100 Round Maga Reeeaaallly. A picture's worth a thousand words. Is that kind of thing appropriate for public consumtion? Is it responsible? What is it saying? it only advances credibilty to not just my argument, but why the entire gun advocacy movement is suspect right from the beginning. Like yourself, I'm not an advocate of messing with the II Amendment, but, ya'know, enough is enough already. The kind of attitude that is reflect; just in that one website, is the kind of thing that does more harm to this country than any good it could ever do: it just makes us look silly and stupid. Sorry but we''ll have to disagree on such equipment for public consumption.
 
Furiounova said:
From what you posted there is nothing unusual about what he said.
Click to expand...


I posted this because this is a first exclusive video we have of the suspect, not because of the contents of what he said,
 
presluc said:
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
Click to expand...

In my mind, it's all about mature and responsible measures. Giving bottle rockest to children only gets people's roofs caught on fire.
 
ecofarm said:
I don't agree with that, but the rest of the post is good. I think the ar15 is a great all-around rifle with countless possible accessories/modifications, but it would be a very poor choice for home defense.
Click to expand...

No problem. You are thinking maneuverability and I can't disagree with that. I'm more comfortable with the thought of a pistol at close quarters, but I wouldn't have a problem with an M-4 for home defense.
 
presluc said:
Common sense is a good phrase too bad it isn't used as often in America today.

When every year or so some nut comes out with guns or a gun and kills innocent people .
Click to expand...

Some nut also murders people with knives every year. Should purchasing a knife require back ground checks,permits ,registrations, waiting periods and ect?

One does not have to have a high IQ. to figure out there's something about selling guns to weirdos that isn't right.
Click to expand...

One does not have to have a I to understand that weird does not equal dangerous.


So is the background checks working?
Click to expand...

If you got a clean record then a back ground check isn't going to do squat.Besides that criminals do not submit to back ground checks.




So is it time for the NRA to stop collecting money, stop making speeches and get off their lazy ass and do something?
Yes I would say it is.:peace
Click to expand...

The only things the NRA,GOA and other 2nd amendment advocates should do is encourage firearm ownership and to make sure the rats in office do not infringe on our 2nd amendment rights.
 
jet57 said:
Sorry, I just don't see the usefulnes of a 30 rounder for the public: we've just seen profound and compelling evidence of why. Competition shooting can be done equally well with 10 round mags. I mean, check this out: The Beta Company | BETA MAG C-MAG | 100 Round Maga Reeeaaallly. A picture's worth a thousand words. Is that kind of thing appropriate for public consumtion? Is it responsible? What is it saying? it only advances credibilty to not just my argument, but why the entire gun advocacy movement is suspect right from the beginning. Like yourself, I'm not an advocate of messing with the II Amendment, but, ya'know, enough is enough already. The kind of attitude that is reflect; just in that one website, is the kind of thing that does more harm to this country than any good it could ever do: it just makes us look silly and stupid. Sorry but we''ll have to disagree on such equipment for public consumption.
Click to expand...

You have presented no actual argument against the conflicted merchandise. Emotions run high but not enough to compensate baseless positions. Your personal inability to see why consumers may want a 100R mag does not translate into actual compelling evidence against their sale. If you can produce a solid argument that would be great to read.
 
Mya said:
I posted this because this is a first exclusive video we have of the suspect, not because of the contents of what he said,
Click to expand...

Okay and thanks....but personally I do not want to see him animated unless it helps us understand the why.

For right now my theory is he could not take the pressure of school and society's definition of "success" and lashed out at society indiscriminately in the same way he felt indiscriminately molded. For anyone who may misunderstand me, no I am not suggesting he was justified in any way shape translation form hint suggestion implication or foreshadowing.
 
Furiounova said:
You have presented no actual argument against the conflicted merchandise. Emotions run high but not enough to compensate baseless positions. Your personal inability to see why consumers may want a 100R mag does not translate into actual compelling evidence against their sale. If you can produce a solid argument that would be great to read.
Click to expand...

Consumers want full blown alcohol engines under the hood as well: but you can't run them on the street: the effects are illegal. Look, I posed a well reasoned and valid argument against that stuff: 100 round mags: for what? I mean really? If you can't see that then I can't help you.
 
Furiounova said:
Okay and thanks....but personally I do not want to see him animated unless it helps us understand the why.
.............
Click to expand...


Sure, that's you, but may be others are interested, I know I am, so...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom