tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Who said anything about banning.
BTW, cars require licenses and registration in CO.
Firearms do not.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
American Gun Laws,i just don't get it (Aurora Cinema shootings)
- Thread starter England my lionheart
- Start date
BTW, cars require licenses and registration in CO.
Firearms do not.
Mr. Skittles
Active Member
State laws vary. In California it takes about two weeks to clewr backgrounds. From my understanding this guy purchased those guns in 1 week and 1/2
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
A lot of Americans don't get it either. If people could vote on gun control laws, we would probably have bans on the type of weaponry and ammunition that this man was able to buy legally in stores and on the internet. OTOH, elected representatives in our legislatures do not dare vote for stronger gun control laws. How does one explain a country that allows citizens to buy 100-round barrel magazines to fit on semi-automatic legal assault weapons that can be easily (albeit illegally) converted to automatic? It is totally crazy to many of us Americans, but probably not as crazy as it must seem to outsiders. Basically, liberals and progressives have given up the fight for tougher gun control laws. We have lost. And by giving up the fight, we open up the door to things just getting worse. There will be more tragedies like this one. That is for certain.
If you want a good liberal perspective on the subject, I recommend E.J. Dion's column entitled "The Colorado Shooting and the Gag Rule on Guns." Anyone who tries to mention gun control regulation in the context of such a shooting is immediately attacked as exploiting a tragedy for political ends. So we mourn our losses and keep doing the same thing, hoping for different results.
It's pretty normal to buy ammo in bulk. Cheaper to practice.
But it will be interesting to see what about this guy could've tipped us off.
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
OK, for anyone who thinks there should be more restrictions/bans on guns or ammunition, tell me this please: If someone wanted to kill a lot of people quickly and violently, how would stricter rules or bans on guns or ammo stop them?
BTW, I hope this guy didn't play video games or listen to rock, then we have to have that whole debate again.
BTW, I hope this guy didn't play video games or listen to rock, then we have to have that whole debate again.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Stop a determined killer? No.
Make it a bit more difficult and possibly save a few lives? Possibly.
Make it a bit more difficult and possibly save a few lives? Possibly.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
What law, were it in effect before the incident in the OP do you think would have saved lives?
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
This isn't rocket science. You ban sales of ammo over the Internet, and then you put restrictions on the type of ammo and gun accessories (e.g. Size of magazines). Would that have stopped Holmes? Possibly not. But why make it so easy for any dunce to amass that kind of lethal arsenal? Let them put some effort into it. If more restrictive laws just stop a few massacres, at the inconvenience of a lot of lawful citizens--well, that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make. I understand why you oppose it. You're one of those who will feel more inconvenienced. :sorry1:
McBell
Admiral Obvious
yep, cause doing so after each media frenzy massacre has all but stopped the massacres for the media to frenzy...
Wait...
Mr. Skittles
Active Member
I see gun laws as deterents not preventative.
InsurgoInsurgiInsurrect
Member
And the delusional people that think that preserving the capacity for a civil war by being allowed to carry a shot gun and a .30-06 Springfield will allow for that.
You're going to shoot down drones and missiles you can't see? Good luck with that.freethinker44
Well-Known Member
I'm not actually, I own zero guns and don't plan on owning any. I am just a huge fan of truth and reason and I see no logical reason to make stricter gun laws. Gun laws aren't going to keep guns away from criminals. Funny thing about criminals is that they commit crimes. They don't care about existing laws, why would new laws stop them? The problem isn't that people are killing people with guns, the problem is that people are killing people. If we just focus on the guns then we are only treating a symptom.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
And the delusional people that think that preserving the capacity for a civil war by being allowed to carry a shot gun and a .30-06 Springfield will allow for that.
Please tell me that that was not your "A" game....
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
Good for you. You don't own guns, but you are concerned that those who do might be inconvenienced for no good reason. Myself, I think that there are very good, logical reasons to inconvenience people who might be driven by a desire to commit mass murder. My willingness to tolerate increased incidents of mass murder and gun casualties in order to make it more convenient for the vast majority of lawful gun owners is perhaps a little less than that of others. That may help to explain why our country has such notoriously lax restrictions on the possession of deadly weapons. My opinion on matters of gun control policy doesn't count as much as those who oppose tighter controls.
Then why have any laws at all? After all, they won't ever eliminate the existence of lawbreakers. Let's just do away with criminal laws, and that will solve the problem of crime. Now, why didn't I think of that? :sarcastic
In the absence of your alternative proposal for treating the root cause, I'll go for treating symptoms. For example, if we could have eliminated the number of Holmes' victims buy making it difficult for him to by a hundred-round magazine for his legal assault weapon--well, I'm all for that. I believe that the majority of the people who buy those drum clips won't commit mass murder, and maybe Holmes would have found one on the black market. But, here's the thing. I would prefer he got it on the black market than through a legal purchase. I'm sorry that all those other wonderful citizens couldn't buy a hundred-round magazine for their hobby, but not as sorry as I am for the victims of that man who left over 70 people wounded, a dozen of whom died.
Last edited:
s2a
Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
Let me offer as weak defense that not all Americans favor gun laws as written today...but know that many of those laws are not federalized (ie, apply nationwide). The individual 50 states write and enforce the majority of gun purchase and ownership laws as only apply to the residents of those states alone.
So, as insane at it sounds to most outsiders, there are quite literally 50 separate but equal standards of enforceable gun laws today.
Only 5 of the 50 states regulate whom may purchase or own assault rifles, and all 50 states allow purchase and ownership of the handguns and shotgun) along with virtually unlimited stockpiles of literally thousands of rounds of ammunition, all of which were obtained legally by this latest iterated psychopath/sociopath.
And we then wonder why crazy people can manage to exploit such "laws", then "go postal" and shoot/maim/kill dozens of people in just minutes...
Going postal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
*face palm*
Inevitably, at least initially, peaceful and reasoned people here ask "How could this happen"?
They then inquire, "What can we do to insure this never happens again"?
Short answers are as follows...
"Crazy happens", and can not be prevented (but can be treated, when identified in time)
...and...
"Nothing"
That's the ongoing tragedy in the US today...Aurora is but another all-too-frequent and tragic example that crazy people here can legally obtain, own and purchase as many weapons as they can afford, with a lone designed purpose to kill people, and will continue to do so as they please.
"Aurora" will happen again, someplace, somewhere, sooner than later...and given the national politics and powerful special interests that are entrenched today, there's nothing -nothing- anyone can (or will) do to prevent it from happening again.
And that's the tragedy that no one here is willing to face...as horrible as it always is to confront and try to understand...
There's just enough of a fearful and ignorant populace remaining here adequately persuaded and convinced to vote against their own self-interests every election cycle.
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
Don't put words in my mouth. That isn't what I said or even implied. Come on.
OK so basically you are saying that you realize he could have gotten the weapons even if they were illegal but they should still be illegal? Again, I am not arguing this because I care about gun owners being inconvenienced, I care about people making good strong arguments and getting closer to truth. I just don't see the logic in this argument. You say if they will inconvenience the gunman then you are OK with that, but then basically admit that the gunman won't be inconvenienced. And it's true, he won't be. At all. If he wanted to kill people he would kill people. The only people gun laws inconvenience are people who buy and use guns legally.
Who is in favor of requiring gun owners to store them in safes, so that theft is less of a problem?
I don't see that as restricting my right to own them.
Mr. Skittles
Active Member
After reading a few comments I will say this. Those of you who don't own guns because you rely on "truth and reason" I hope if I am desperate (God forbid) you have that same mindset if I break into your house with my Bushmaster AR-15.
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
You can't break into my house, there is a law against that.