• 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

Tigger said:
So is the understanding that when SECONDS count, the police are ony MINUTES away.
Click to expand...

If they recognised that it is their responsiblity to take care of themselves in such circumstances, then they would have to acknowledge it elsewhere. They claim that groups like the NRA uses fear as a political weapon but refuse to recognise that their political stance is based upon fear of actually having to be responsible for themselves and that they would have to live or die on and with the results of their own choices and actions.
 
kaya'08 said:
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
Click to expand...
My theory on why purchases have risen so dramatically so soon afterward...

a) People feel the need to protect themselves,
b) People feel the need to get a firearm while they still can... before more restrictive laws are enacted,
c) Both of the above.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
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!
Click to expand...

Obama would clearly impede gun rights if it weren't for the NRA and an activist population of Americans who would punish his party (like 94').

Well saying Im pro gun and personally im just not going to be afraid over ignorant statements...
Click to expand...

A pro-gun socialist? You're a rare bird. Considering the largest mass murders in history were carried out by socialist governments on an unarmed populace. Thankfully, socialism/communism are being relegated to the dustbins of history. It is rational to afraid of being a violent crime victim, and arming yourself to prevent that is rational.
 
Romulus said:
That's my point, your side puts reason aside by banning firearms with cosmetics that look scary, to the ignorant.
Click to expand...

I think both sides do that.
 
Oh great, more panicked overreaction from the public.

I don't believe for a second that a lunatic like Holmes would be stopped by movie-goers packing heat. The theater was filled with tear-gas or whatever it was. Holmes was decked out in protective gear. His goal was to kill as many people as possible. A average citizen with a .38 on his ankle would have been useless in this scenario.

Gun ownership, IMO, reduces direct crimes against people. Having armed citizens most likely would reduce muggings and carjackings. The right to use deadly force against home invaders I think deters quite a few robbers or rapists.

Unfortunately, this specific scenario, the Batman shooting, an armed citizenry probably a. Would not deter someone like Holmes and b. would probably have little impact in a similar scenario. The average criminal might be deterred by armed citizens. A crazed killer who's goal is to kill as many as possible would only increase their aggressiveness to overcome a possible threat.. Maybe they'll throw a molotov instead of a tear gas bomb next time. A few pistol-packing moviegoers would not have deterred or stopped Holmes.

The point is, this Batman shooting needs to be addressed from a preventative angle; our lack of mental health services in this country.
 
Last edited:
Romulus said:
Obama would clearly impede gun rights if it weren't for the NRA and an activist population of Americans who would punish his party (like 94').
Click to expand...
Sure he would... If only right? I mean your really in Obamas brain right? You can read his mind right? He is probably thinking "if it wasnt for that damn NRA"... :roll:




A pro-gun socialist? You're a rare bird.
Click to expand...
I guess so :shrug:

Considering the largest mass murders in history were carried out by socialist governments on an unarmed populace.
Click to expand...
:roll:

Thankfully, socialism/communism are being relegated to the dustbins of history. It is rational to afraid of being a violent crime victim, and arming yourself to prevent that is rational.
Click to expand...

:roll:
 
RadicalModerate said:
Oh great, more panicked overreaction from the public.

I don't believe for a second that a lunatic like Holmes would be stopped by movie-goers packing heat. The theater was filled with tear-gas or whatever it was. Holmes was decked out in protective gear. His goal was to kill as many people as possible. A average citizen with a .38 on his ankle would have been useless in this scenario.

Gun ownership, IMO, reduces direct crimes against people. Having armed citizens most likely would reduce muggings and carjackings. The right to use deadly force against home invaders I think deters quite a few robbers or rapists.

Unfortunately, this specific scenario, the Batman shooting, an armed citizenry probably a. Would not deter someone like Holmes and b. would probably have little impact in a similar scenario. The average criminal might be deterred by armed citizens. A crazed killer who's goal is to kill as many as possible would only increase their aggressiveness to overcome a possible threat.. Maybe they'll throw a molotov instead of a tear gas bomb next time. A few pistol-packing moviegoers would not have deterred or stopped Holmes.

The point is, this Batman shooting needs to be addressed from a preventative angle; our lack of mental health services in this country.
Click to expand...

...............:2rofll:
 
RadicalModerate said:
Oh great, more panicked overreaction from the public.

I don't believe for a second that a lunatic like Holmes would be stopped by movie-goers packing heat. The theater was filled with tear-gas or whatever it was. Holmes was decked out in protective gear. His goal was to kill as many people as possible. A average citizen with a .38 on his ankle would have been useless in this scenario.
Click to expand...

Simply wrong. While Holmes was kevlar-ed up, taking shot with body armor is not like it is in the movies. You don't generally just keep on doing what you were doing. In most instances, the individual is knocked off their feet as the vest is design to distribute the high velocity impact over a larger area. I've heard it referred to as being hit sqaure in the chest by someone giving a full swing of a ball peen hammer. Douchebag was in fantasy world....3 slugs to the chest would have brought him back to reality pretty quickly.

While someone packing may not have prevented people from dying, you're delusional if you think the numbers of people that were shot woudln't be drastically lower.
 
RadicalModerate said:
Oh great, more panicked overreaction from the public.

I don't believe for a second that a lunatic like Holmes would be stopped by movie-goers packing heat. The theater was filled with tear-gas or whatever it was. Holmes was decked out in protective gear. His goal was to kill as many people as possible. A average citizen with a .38 on his ankle would have been useless in this scenario.

Gun ownership, IMO, reduces direct crimes against people. Having armed citizens most likely would reduce muggins and carjackings. The right to use deadly force against home invaders I think deters quite a few robbers or rapists.

Unfortunately, this specific scenario, the Batman shooting, an armed citizenry probably a. Would not deter someone like Holmes and b. would probably have little impact in a similar scenario. The average criminal might be deterred by armed citizens. A crazed killer who's goal is to kill as many as possible would only increase their aggressiveness to overcome a possible threat.. Maybe they'll throw a molotov instead of a tear gas bomb next time. A few pistol-packing moviegoers would not have deterred or stopped Holmes.

The point is, this Batman shooting needs to be addressed from a preventative angle; our lack of mental health services in this country.
Click to expand...

What? Just how would "mental health services" have kept this moron from committing premeditated mass murder? He spent THOUSANDS on his weapons, it is not an "access" issue. Will we send the "loony squad" to aid all of those deemed "odd" or "loners" by their neaghbors?

It never ceases to amaze me that some NEW gov't program or law is the "only logical" way to deal with ANY situation. The EASIEST, by far, step to prevent the "theater killer" is to alarm the "emergency" exit doors, preventing them from entering "unnoticed" with full body armor and numerous weapons.

Creating and sending a "loony squad" to seek out "odd folks" is not going to do ANYTHING except waste time and massive amounts of tax money. You do realize that the Batman killer was PAID by the U.S. gov't to go to school, had no job and likely used that tax money to fund this plot. If the gov't is not even going to "check out" those it gives our tax money to, it is HIGHLY unlikely that it will effectively "check out" random folks in a country of over 300 million.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Sure he would... If only right? I mean your really in Obamas brain right? You can read his mind right? He is probably thinking "if it wasnt for that damn NRA"... :roll:





I guess so :shrug:


:roll:



:roll:
Click to expand...

His own sycophants make that claim.
 
Fishstyx said:
Simply wrong. While Holmes was kevlar-ed up, taking shot with body armor is not like it is in the movies. You don't generally just keep on doing what you were doing. In most instances, the individual is knocked off their feet as the vest is design to distribute the high velocity impact over a larger area. I've heard it referred to as being hit sqaure in the chest by someone giving a full swing of a ball peen hammer. Douchebag was in fantasy world....3 slugs to the chest would have brought him back to reality pretty quickly.
Click to expand...

Assuming of course, that one can take a good shot while being surrounded by rushing, panicked individuals in a dark theater filled with tear gas while a action movie plays on a giant screen and one person is armed with a high powered rifle squeezing off shots as a fast as he can.

Like you said, this ain't the movies. That's why I doubt arming citizens would have any effect in a situation like this shooting. Holmes designed his attack to make it so he could kill as many people as possible.

While someone packing may not have prevented people from dying, you're delusional if you think the numbers of people that were shot woudln't be drastically lower.
Click to expand...

I'm saying a spike in people buying CCW permits is a baseless overreaction, banning masks in theaters or advocating banning "assault rifles".
 
RadicalModerate said:
So if access to guns wasn't the problem, and his mental health was not an issue, why did Holmes do what he did? Not enough Sundays at church?
Click to expand...

..............
 
Last edited:
TheDemSocialist said:
Just saying when using fear over little or nothing to promote this means is paranoid.
Click to expand...

Paranoid like the anti-gun tards trying to create more infringements on the 2nd amendment any time someone shoots up a place? How many anti-2nd amendment tards are calling for limitations on Magazine sizes, a ban on so called assault weapons, waiting periods, mental health screenings, background checks, permits, crack downs on gun shows, limits on ammo, and so on?


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!
Click to expand...


If a republican who has a history of supporting and voting for tough anti-abortion laws and anti-gay marriage laws at the state level suddenly because president then I am pretty sure your reaction would be similar to 2nd amendment proponents when Obama became president.So please do not sit there and pretend that its paranoid to be wary of a man because of his past.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
What? Just how would "mental health services" have kept this moron from committing premeditated mass murder? He spent THOUSANDS on his weapons, it is not an "access" issue. Will we send the "loony squad" to aid all of those deemed "odd" or "loners" by their neaghbors?
Click to expand...

We have a sever lack of mental health services in many parts of the nation. We also have some of the highest rates of personality disorders and mood disorders in the western world. I'm not saying increasing access to mental health is a cure all, I'm saying it's a better topic to discuss than the idea than we should get more people guns in order to stop another mass shooting.

It never ceases to amaze me that some NEW gov't program or law is the "only logical" way to deal with ANY situation. The EASIEST, by far, step to prevent the "theater killer" is to alarm the "emergency" exit doors, preventing them from entering "unnoticed" with full body armor and numerous weapons.
Click to expand...

When did I ever mention new gov't laws? Don't put words in my mouth. There are plenty of ways of expanding mental health services without expanding govt. And besides, mental health is usually under the state government, so what do you care what other states do?

I agree with you second part, too. I'm not advocating one magic bullet to end all crazies.

Creating and sending a "loony squad" to seek out "odd folks" is not going to do ANYTHING except waste time and massive amounts of tax money. You do realize that the Batman killer was PAID by the U.S. gov't to go to school, had no job and likely used that tax money to fund this plot. If the gov't is not even going to "check out" those it gives our tax money to, it is HIGHLY unlikely that it will effectively "check out" random folks in a country of over 300 million.
Click to expand...

None of that is remotely what I think should happen. Where do you get that from?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Sure he would... If only right? I mean your really in Obamas brain right? You can read his mind right? He is probably thinking "if it wasnt for that damn NRA"... :roll:


I guess so :shrug:
Click to expand...

No need to assume Obama's stance on gun control, you can read about it here: :notlook:

Obama: We’re working on gun control “under the radar” « Hot Air

During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of gun control, “to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda,” she said.

“I just want you to know that we are working on it,” Brady recalled the president telling them. “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”
Click to expand...

Could the "under the radar" Obama referred to be the operation, "Fast and Furious?"
 
Jerry said:

..............
Click to expand...


Oh yes, he's just evil. That's a rational approach.

If he's evil, then he's not human, and therefore we don't need to take preventative steps. Humans don't do evil things, so why waste time focusing on non-evil humans? Right?

Logical fallacy.
 
RadicalModerate said:
Unfortunately, this specific scenario, the Batman shooting, an armed citizenry probably a. Would not deter someone like Holmes and b. would probably have little impact in a similar scenario. The average criminal might be deterred by armed citizens. A crazed killer who's goal is to kill as many as possible would only increase their aggressiveness to overcome a possible threat.. Maybe they'll throw a molotov instead of a tear gas bomb next time. A few pistol-packing moviegoers would not have deterred or stopped Holmes.
Click to expand...

A bullet proof vest does not make you superman. If you get hit by a bullet you will feel it and it can still possibly injure you and even break some bones,especially at close range.

eng3060 / Sub-Process 3 - How Does a Bullet-Proof Vest Stop a Bullet (Aaron Martin)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom