• 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!

Colorado gun sales up after cinema killings

kaya'08

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Messages
6,363
Reaction score
1,318
Location
British Turk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The number of people seeking to buy guns in Colorado has soared since last week's mass shooting in the US state's town of Aurora, say law officials.
In the three days after the shooting, applications for the background checks needed to buy a gun legally were up 43% on the previous week.

According to data released by the Colorado Bureau of Investigations, 880 people applied for the state-approved background checks on Friday, 13 July, days before the shooting.

On Friday, 29 July, the day following the shooting, the number was 1,216, and on the Saturday, 1,243. In total, 2,887 people were approved to buy a gun over the weekend, an increase of 43.5% on the weekend before, said the bureau.

"What they're saying is, 'they want to have a chance'," he told the Denver Post. "They want to have the ability to protect themselves and their families if they are in a situation like what happened in the movie theatre."

BBC News - Aurora shooting: Colorado gun sales up after cinema killings
 
This does not surprise me at all. In fact, it's very common from what I've seen and read over the years.
 
Not very suprising. While some promote what happened, there and elsewhere as an example of the need for tighter gun laws, many individuals also realise that there is no way for Police to respond in time. Whether it is at that theater, the streets of Chicago or your home, the police probably will not be able to respond in time to save your life if someone is intent on taking it. It is incumbent upon each individual of legal age to provide for their own protection between the start of any incident and the police arriving.

The government should make no laws that restrict, inhibit or limit a lawful individual from the right to defend themselves.
 
its a silly idea, that only a gun can stop a gunman.

Well then we need to tell police around this country that if a man is shooting at them that drawing their weapon should be the LAST thing they do.

But I must ask you Thud, what exactly are other effective ways to stop a mad man with an AR-15?
 
According to data released by the Colorado Bureau of Investigations, 880 people applied for the state-approved background checks on Friday, 13 July, days before the shooting.

On Friday, 29 July, the day following the shooting, the number was 1,216, and on the Saturday, 1,243. In total, 2,887 people were approved to buy a gun over the weekend, an increase of 43.5% on the weekend before, said the bureau.

"What they're saying is, 'they want to have a chance'," he told the Denver Post. "They want to have the ability to protect themselves and their families if they are in a situation like what happened in the movie theatre."

BBC News - Aurora shooting: Colorado gun sales up after cinema killings

I think this is good news. And, on another thread talking about lawsuits, someone (TD, I think) pointed out that the theater might have some culpability for designating their theater a "no-gun zone." If one has a legal permit to carry a gun in any state, venues shouldn't be able to over-ride the law unless they're searching people as they come through the door, have armed security and metal detectors. (And don't have unmanned and unalarmed exits that allow people to come and go at will.) I agree with this, too.

If this ever happens in a public venue again, I hope we have enough armed citizens willing and able to take out the shooter by other means than throwing a box of popcorn at him. Hopefully, Coloradans have seen the light. Illinois? We're blind here.
 
its a silly idea, that only a gun can stop a gunman.

Other than the gunman running out of ammo or his weapon jamming what are the other ways can stop a rampaging gunman without the use of gun?
 
Doesnt surprise me. Thats why the NRA uses fear....
 
So is the understanding that when SECONDS count, the police are ony MINUTES away.

Anti-gun tards seem to think that police are superman and can immediately be anywhere in seconds or that miss Cleo must work for the police.
 
Doesnt surprise me. Thats why the NRA uses fear....

Yeah cause wanting an effective means to defend yourself against a criminal is just people being paranoid. (sarcasm)
 
According to data released by the Colorado Bureau of Investigations, 880 people applied for the state-approved background checks on Friday, 13 July, days before the shooting.

On Friday, 29 July, the day following the shooting, the number was 1,216, and on the Saturday, 1,243. In total, 2,887 people were approved to buy a gun over the weekend, an increase of 43.5% on the weekend before, said the bureau.

"What they're saying is, 'they want to have a chance'," he told the Denver Post. "They want to have the ability to protect themselves and their families if they are in a situation like what happened in the movie theatre."

BBC News - Aurora shooting: Colorado gun sales up after cinema killings

Fear's a terrible thing.
 
Doesnt surprise me. Thats why the NRA uses fear....

Appealing to fear is only wrong when that fear is irrational. Considering the anti-gun movement appealed to fear in order to ban bayonet lugs and pistol grips on weapons which present no rational threat, I'd say your side appeals to the irrational and/or ignorant.
 
I think this is good news. And, on another thread talking about lawsuits, someone (TD, I think) pointed out that the theater might have some culpability for designating their theater a "no-gun zone." If one has a legal permit to carry a gun in any state, venues shouldn't be able to over-ride the law unless they're searching people as they come through the door, have armed security and metal detectors. (And don't have unmanned and unalarmed exits that allow people to come and go at will.) I agree with this, too.
I'm on the fence here. While I believe firmly in maximizing liberty as our constitution allows it swings both ways. If I had a public venue, store, business it would be CCW friendly because I realize that CCW holders are even less likely to commit crimes than the general populace and could disarm or stop a criminal in the act, but I also realize that private property rights are just as important so I feel that if a business chooses to censor the ability to curse, carry weapons on premises, etc. it should be their right to do so even if I disagree with that decision. To the unmanned and unalarmed door, that could be a liability, as I pointed out in another thread there were club owners that were ordered by the fire martial in my city to "loosen" fire doors at all operational hours and they ended up hiring more security to watch for cover dodgers and people trying to go back to vehicles to get their weapons. That emergency exit is a necessity but definitely a double edged sword.

If this ever happens in a public venue again, I hope we have enough armed citizens willing and able to take out the shooter by other means than throwing a box of popcorn at him. Hopefully, Coloradans have seen the light. Illinois? We're blind here.
God bless you Maggie! If more people thought the whole situation out criminals would feel less safe to victimize, they would think twice about whether their desired crime zone would be hazardous or not due to armed "victims".
 
Appealing to fear is only wrong when that fear is irrational. Considering the anti-gun movement appealed to fear in order to ban bayonet lugs and pistol grips on weapons which present no rational threat, I'd say your side appeals to the irrational and/or ignorant.

Not sure appealing to fear is ever legit, not when it puts reason aside.
 
its a silly idea, that only a gun can stop a gunman.

Not really true, but I also tend to carry a knife, kubaton, and pepper spray; just in case they might turn out to be handy as well.
 
Yeah cause wanting an effective means to defend yourself against a criminal is just people being paranoid. (sarcasm)

Just saying when using fear over little or nothing to promote this means is paranoid.
Remember when Obama came to power? "Obama gonna take yur guns!" "Obama is going to disarm Merica!" "Obama is going to ban ammunition sales!"... What happened? Oh yea... Nothing!
 
Appealing to fear is only wrong when that fear is irrational. Considering the anti-gun movement appealed to fear in order to ban bayonet lugs and pistol grips on weapons which present no rational threat, I'd say your side appeals to the irrational and/or ignorant.

Well saying Im pro gun and personally im just not going to be afraid over ignorant statements...
 
Not sure appealing to fear is ever legit, not when it puts reason aside.

That's my point, your side puts reason aside by banning firearms with cosmetics that look scary, to the ignorant.
 
its a silly idea, that only a gun can stop a gunman.

Well if you're out of acme anvils and such, you may have to resort to a gun. Or cower in fear and take your chances of being shot.
 
Back
Top Bottom