• 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.
And, there is the problem. How do we identify people who are likely to go off the deep end and start killing people?
And, if they're at that point, is preventing them from having guns going to stop them?

No. But a 10 and 2 of Haldol and Ativan in the ass might. Once you identify the risk, you can pursue involuntary commitment procedures.

How do we identify all of them? I guess first we have to disallow people from being reclusive. Most people who are out in the open about their bat**** crazy violent schemes get scooped up and dealt with. Happens all the time all over the country, really, just do some shadowing in an ER sometime. Most crazy folks are terrible at concealing the risks they pose, and law enforcement deals with them regularly. Some folks are very secretive and so I guess to identify the ones who would otherwise successfully carry out an attack requires banning reclusive, introverted or secretive tendencies altogether. Maybe we can ramp up our government social worker force and have all people be subject to monthly home-based mental health assessments?

I'm being sarcastic. There's no way to prevent the occasional tragedy. Just prepare yourself for the unpredictable and spread the word that a well-armed populace is the best defense against both tyranny and anarchy.
 
And you know that time on target is only one aspect of the equation. You always anticipate the shot, recover from recoil, and recover the mark anyway. Any decent shooter can acquire the target in a reasonable time.
What are you talking about?! I'm talking about the amount of time it takes to execute a mag change, reacquire your target, then engage. You are talking about the action of shooting. Time on target is the entire argument against these drums. Plain and simple. When a person can look through their sights for 100 round vice 20, its a huge advantage.
Besides, drum mags are more likely to jam anyway.....but you knew that.
Depends on the quality of the drum, maintenance, lubrication, etc. Just like any other mag.
Nope, sure doesn't. You are arguing that any "advantage" is a reason to ban something, I'm saying it's not that big of a deal and it isn't. Frankly if a gun jams it's a disadvantage over the other one, we can't ban gun jams or require that they jam every 20 rounds or so. Frankly it's as I've said, the burden of proof is extremely heavy upon those who want to restrict a right, and there are 1) Not enough drum mags out there to be a factor 2) It's not some kind of unfair advantage that makes the gun a "super weapon" and 3) Doesn't of itself endanger anyone.
No, I'm arguing that this particular advantage needs to be banned. Cops can't match it, it has no prac app to the real world, and doesn't affect the rights of a citizen to purchase a firearm. You still didn't answer why M203 grenade launcher attachments shouldn't be legal if this is.
A mag change is the equivalent of a jam ie it is a stoppage of fire. The aforementioned timeframe of about 5-9 seconds is an eternity when speaking of a stoppage of fire in a tactical situation. That is why we teach "talking guns". Where one crew serve machine gun fires at a faster rate than the other with the other firing slower and picking up the pauses of his partner. When his partner runs out, he picks up the pace of firing until the reload is completed. Then his partner picks up his pace of fire until both are firing again. We drill and drill this so that there is no interruption in suppression. When you have defenseless, panicked people running in the open, that 5-9 seconds allows them enough time to run, unafraid, to the nearest exit. It also allows them to time his mag changes. With a drum, the guy is just meleeing them. Which he did. I'm not saying this definitely would have kept him from killing so many. But it couldn't have hurt. We shouldn't make it easy for him to do this. With a 100 round drum, it is.
 
No. But a 10 and 2 of Haldol and Ativan in the ass might. Once you identify the risk, you can pursue involuntary commitment procedures.

How do we identify all of them? I guess first we have to disallow people from being reclusive. Most people who are out in the open about their bat**** crazy violent schemes get scooped up and dealt with. Happens all the time all over the country, really, just do some shadowing in an ER sometime. Most crazy folks are terrible at concealing the risks they pose, and law enforcement deals with them regularly. Some folks are very secretive and so I guess to identify the ones who would otherwise successfully carry out an attack requires banning reclusive, introverted or secretive tendencies altogether. Maybe we can ramp up our government social worker force and have all people be subject to monthly home-based mental health assessments?

I'm being sarcastic. There's no way to prevent the occasional tragedy. Just prepare yourself for the unpredictable and spread the word that a well-armed populace is the best defense against both tyranny and anarchy.

That sounds like a plan.
That, and recognizing that there is no such thing as perfect safety, nor a perfect way to identify potential threats of any kind.
 
why don't you tell me that if 100 round beta C mags are banned, why the gun banners won't go to 30 round bans, 20 round bans down to the 6 rounds Scumbag Schummer was proposing when his party took an ass-kicking in 94 because of the 10 round limit
 
And what is the wild west known for? Oh, and have you ever heard of Michael Robert Ryan? GB has a higher rate of violent crime than the U.S., they also have crazed gunmen who commit massacres.
LOL So the old wild west in your opinion is 1987? What the wild west was known for was mostly myth perpetuated by Buffalo Bill and his wild west shows and a few novels. Most towns especially in towns where cowboys would come after a cattle drive had gun ordinances like TD said. So my point was those ordinances had a purpose and that was to prevent gun violence and no one back then used the second amendment as an excuse to keep their guns when they were in town because everyone knew that people were a lot safer when guns weren't present.
 
why don't you tell me that if 100 round beta C mags are banned, why the gun banners won't go to 30 round bans, 20 round bans down to the 6 rounds Scumbag Schummer was proposing when his party took an ass-kicking in 94 because of the 10 round limit

10 rounds is fine..for a handgun.

rifles should be 20 rounds.
 
Interesting experiment today. one of my employees got emotional this morning about the shooting and went on a rant about better gun laws. I briefly explained they are a waste of time but she countered with a strange claim: that a baseball bat was good enough for self defense. I dropped it so she could get back to work. Around lunch I stopped at c-store to get ice.....and a shiny new water pistol. (job is residential remodeling)

After lunch I gave her an extension pole, walked about ten paces away and told her to try and hit me with it. She was perplexed until I showed her the water gun. She then said "that isn't fair" so I said I was uncomfortable with using a real gun for the experiment. I then explained that from that moment until the end of the day, if she could even touch me with the pole (extends to 12 feet long) before I could hit her with water she would get a paid day off tomorrow.

She made a single attempt about an hour later and she ended up swinging blind because of the water hitting her face. She threw the pole down and stomped off. She did admit the point was made but she is so upset because she feels helpless. I think this is how many people feel and their emotions trump reason.

You're the man. There's nothing else to say.
 
why don't you tell me that if 100 round beta C mags are banned, why the gun banners won't go to 30 round bans, 20 round bans down to the 6 rounds Scumbag Schummer was proposing when his party took an ass-kicking in 94 because of the 10 round limit

Is this directed at me?
 
A local ordinance huh? Then why wasn't Chicago allowed to ban guns in it's city limits? Gun crimes and homicides don't seem to be decreasing there much.

England had less crime, Canada had less crime, hell almost every civilized country in the world has less crime than the US. Why is that?

You are wrong. According to wiki:

International comparison

The manner in which America's crime rate compared to other countries of similar wealth and development depends on the nature of the crime used in the comparison. Overall crime statistic comparisons are difficult to conduct, as the definition of crimes significant enough to be published in annual reports varies across countries. Thus an agency in a foreign country may include crimes in its annual reports which the United States omits.

Some countries such as Canada, however, have similar definitions of what constitutes a violent crime, and nearly all countries had the same definition of the characteristics that constitutes a homicide. Overall the total crime rate of the United States is similar to that of other highly developed countries. Some types of reported property crime in the U.S. survey as lower than in Germany or Canada, yet the homicide rate in the United States is substantially higher.

If you compare the U.S. to Europe and Anglo countries, not only is are overall violent crime rate lower...it is the lowest!

MEASURES OF GUN OWNERSHIP
LEVELS FOR MACRO-LEVEL
CRIME AND VIOLENCE RESEARCH


In Britain based on year 2000 statistics supplied by UK Home Office the following percentages of the population of these countries were exposed to crime. Among the countries compared the USA has the lowest number of incidents. The UK and Australia do not allow ownership of handguns. About 3% of the Germany population own firearms.
The lowest rate - for the year 200 period in the USA there were 11,605,751 incidents of reported crime based on a population of 300,000,000 (06) - 3.87% of the population was exposed to crime
Australia which does not allow ownership of handguns had a reported crime rate of 1,431,929 based on a population of 20,000,000 - 7.16% of the population was exposed to crime.
Germany with a population of 82 million (05) has a reported 6.264,723 crimes or 7.64% of the population was exposed to crime.
In Britain there were 5,170,843 incidents of reported crime to the police based on a population of 60, 587,000 (06) - 8.5% of the population was exposed to crime.
Highest rate - New Zealand with a population of 4,000,000 (06) had a reported crime with 427,230 incidents - 10.68% of the population was exposed to crime.

Yes, we have more homicides, and we can discuss who it is exactly in our society that is killing each other, but I don't want to be called a racist for pointing out statistical fact. Let's just say we have an urban youth gang problem in large cities.
 
10 rounds is fine..for a handgun.

rifles should be 20 rounds.

given how little you know about firearms compared to me I don't think you are in any position to tell me what is the proper number or rounds

given most Police Departments issue 17 round handguns, we shouldn't even talk about OTHER CIVILIANS having less ability to defend themselves that state civilian EMPLOYEES.
 
Is this directed at me?

Yeah, you seem to think a limit is appropriate. Tell me what happens if you crank a full Beta C mag through a M4 as fast as it will shoot?

the only useful purpose of such magazines are IPSC Rifle competitors where a .5 second difference can mean several places or someone issued something like that old STONER LMG that the SEALS USED in the Nam that took M16 mags or other STANAG LMGs designed for sustained auto fire that use STANAG magazines
 
10 rounds is fine..for a handgun.

rifles should be 20 rounds.

I don't personally need a 100 round magazine, on the other-hand, that doesn't seem justification to me to ban them. What % of people are killed in America by guns with 30 round magazines or larger?
 
I don't personally need a 100 round magazine, on the other-hand, that doesn't seem justification to me to ban them. What % of people are killed in America by guns with 30 round magazines or larger?

probably less than 2% from what I recall. I remember when the original "assault weapon ban" was being discussed and the Chief of Police of Trenton NJ was quoted in the WSJ noting that his police officers were more likely to be mauled by an escaped circus tiger than shot by a criminal using an "Assault weapon" with a high capacity magazine.

small handguns are still the most popular criminal weapon due to concealibility and their ability to be quickly ditched when the Po Po comes around
 
Yeah, you seem to think a limit is appropriate. Tell me what happens if you crank a full Beta C mag through a M4 as fast as it will shoot?

Stop pretending you're some kind of gun expert.

You don't even know what an assault rifle is.
 
You are wrong. According to wiki:



If you compare the U.S. to Europe and Anglo countries, not only is are overall violent crime rate lower...it is the lowest!

MEASURES OF GUN OWNERSHIP
LEVELS FOR MACRO-LEVEL
CRIME AND VIOLENCE RESEARCH
Maybe you should take it up with TurtleDude since I was responding to his comment....
....btw England had even less crime before they started banning guns
NTL, I believe we were talking about gun homicides in particular and the Wiki article that you posted says...

"...Some types of reported property crime in the U.S. survey as lower than in Germany or Canada, yet the homicide rate in the United States is substantially higher.
Property crime does happen everywhere and most people know that you don't need a gun to steal someones property. So your point is moot.

Yes, we have more homicides, and we can discuss who it is exactly in our society that is killing each other, but I don't want to be called a racist for pointing out statistical fact. Let's just say we have an urban youth gang problem in large cities.
Yes, we all know who is commiting the most gun homicides which is why many large metropolitan cities want to ban guns, not add more. Since Mayor Bloomberg started implementing his search and seizure policy (which also violates the constitution), gun homicide and crime in NYC went down so significantly that it lowered the entire nationial homicide and crime rate. Removing guns did that, not adding them.
 
Last edited:
Why would anyone need to be able to shoot more than ten rounds or so without reloading?

What would they be shooting to require that many shots, outside of a combat situation that is?
 
Stop pretending you're some kind of gun expert.

You don't even know what an assault rifle is.
stop lying

you were the one caught confusing assault weapon with assault rifle and then you post this crap

I have already defined the term without having to google it-something you should have done BEFORE you spewed your ignorant idiocy about assault weapons thinking they were the same as assault rifles
 
Why would anyone need to be able to shoot more than ten rounds or so without reloading?

What would they be shooting to require that many shots, outside of a combat situation that is?

well then why do police carry 17 round magazines? their right to shoot in self defense is NO DIFFERENT THAN YOURS

and many competitions--20 round magazines are an advantage

the real question is why should an artificial limit that has no basis in the evidentiary facts be imposed on people?
 
LOL So the old wild west in your opinion is 1987?

Nope. I was refrencing your comparison of gun crimes in the US vs GB. Even in GB where "assault" weapons are illegal massacres still occur.

What the wild west was known for was mostly myth perpetuated by Buffalo Bill and his wild west shows and a few novels. Most towns especially in towns where cowboys would come after a cattle drive had gun ordinances like TD said. So my point was those ordinances had a purpose and that was to prevent gun violence and no one back then used the second amendment as an excuse to keep their guns when they were in town because everyone knew that people were a lot safer when guns weren't present.

So you're cool with the open carry of firearms, just as long as it's not in "towns"?
 
ordinary citizens don't face the dangers and have the responsibilities that cops do.

stop lying--the homicide rate for cops is far lower than for cab drivers and several other professions.

and the cops don't have any greater right to shoot at someone than you do
 
What are you talking about?! I'm talking about the amount of time it takes to execute a mag change, reacquire your target, then engage. You are talking about the action of shooting. Time on target is the entire argument against these drums. Plain and simple. When a person can look through their sights for 100 round vice 20, its a huge advantage.
You didn't mention anything other than time on target, I did. It's not that hard to reaquisition with a cool head, the drum magazine is more of a preference than anything and not some kind of advantage that would be on par with a WMD in terms of danger to the populace.

Depends on the quality of the drum, maintenance, lubrication, etc. Just like any other mag.
Actually, maintenance to maintenance they are the least efficient mechanism, more prone to failure.

No, I'm arguing that this particular advantage needs to be banned. Cops can't match it, it has no prac app to the real world, and doesn't affect the rights of a citizen to purchase a firearm. You still didn't answer why M203 grenade launcher attachments shouldn't be legal if this is.
A mag change is the equivalent of a jam ie it is a stoppage of fire. The aforementioned timeframe of about 5-9 seconds is an eternity when speaking of a stoppage of fire in a tactical situation. That is why we teach "talking guns". Where one crew serve machine gun fires at a faster rate than the other with the other firing slower and picking up the pauses of his partner. When his partner runs out, he picks up the pace of firing until the reload is completed. Then his partner picks up his pace of fire until both are firing again. We drill and drill this so that there is no interruption in suppression. When you have defenseless, panicked people running in the open, that 5-9 seconds allows them enough time to run, unafraid, to the nearest exit. It also allows them to time his mag changes. With a drum, the guy is just meleeing them. Which he did. I'm not saying this definitely would have kept him from killing so many. But it couldn't have hurt. We shouldn't make it easy for him to do this. With a 100 round drum, it is.
Now that's just off. Police do have guns with drums, like riot control shotguns AND gas launchers.
 
ordinary citizens don't face the dangers and have the responsibilities that cops do.

Yes they do. If someone tries to rob me, I can shoot them, or the police can shoot him. It's the same person and same result.
 
Well, when you consider the fact that the killer had 70 targets and that any person who would have had a gun has one target in a dark theater with tear gas in the air, the so-called "speculation" starts to disappear. Things like these happen very quickly and there is also a lot of confusion on top of that. There was a marine in the audience who had no idea what was going on. Everyone fancies themselves as a hero, but the reality is that people panic in highly stressful situations like these no matter how much they would like to pretend that they would be macho. It's incredibly easy to be a tough guy on a message board where you are discussing the thing from afar and you have a tremendous amount of distance from it.

There are plenty of situations where a trained person with a gun would be able to diffuse a situation without hurting or possibly killing others. In my opinion, a dark theater filled with tear gas isn't one of them.
Not unless u are very well trained, and even then it can be a bitch.
 
stop lying--the homicide rate for cops is far lower than for cab drivers and several other professions....

got any evidence for this, or it another baseless claim?

...and the cops don't have any greater right to shoot at someone than you do

silliest thing I've read all day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom