OT: Colorado shooting

[forazzurri2axz]

so who IS going to be the expert and identify the "insane and sick minded", since that's your proposed solution.... When you can buy 6000 rounds of ammo online, these things will continue to happen...
despite what the conservatives/right wingers like to say for their political purposes about liberals and gun control, most of us liberals do also support the right to bear arms. BUT shouldn't there be more difficulty in being able to buy the automatic weapons and 6000 rounds of ammo with such ease?? just sayin'

[Orioles1954]

If someone wants to commit mass murder, no gun law is going to stop them. None are. However, I'm interested in the gun control debate not for the sake of random mass murders (which represents a drop in the bucket of overall gun related deaths). Rather, I'm interested in debating gun control on the overall toll they take on a daily basis. Unfortunately, to many, this overall toll is not sexy or sensational and not worthy of immediate debate. Gun control advocates also do not take into consideration a thriving black market which will take hold should such laws take hold.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

God forbid this country should have a sensible debate about gun control.

He obtained the guns legally through the system. He had no criminal background or anything else that would have prevented him from purchasing them. I know that doesn't make it any easier, but given the laws what could have been done differently to keep those guns out of his hands?

What is your definition of gun control? It sounds like gun control means something different to you than it does to me. My version of gun control is to have the proper checks in place to make sure people with criminal backgrounds and/or are mentally unstable are not allowed to purchase guns and/or ammo. It sounds like your version of control is to take away all guns. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth and if I'm wrong then so be it. However, if that is the case, then please explain what gun control means to you.

The City of Chicago has gun control - some of the toughest gun laws in the nation. Yet their murder rate (by handgun) is among the highest in the nation. Bad guys will always find a way to get their hands on guns.

Maybe you're looking for answers. We all are. What makes someone snap and do something like this? Who knows? But this shouldn't be politicizd. Not now. ABC News tried to do it and it already backfired on them. I'll end with this. I pray for the victims and their families for strength and comfort in this time of tragedy.

[barrysloate]

David- I know you and I are politically as far apart as two people can be. And frankly, there's nothing wrong with that. It's a big country, and not everyone thinks the same.

Like I said, Americans have the right to own guns. I know you own one or more, I saw the picture you posted with your hunting rifle and your dog. Perfectly fine, you have every right to do so.

But I'm willing to bet you don't own an assault rifle, and I bet you have no interest in owning one. So how about we start the debate with: why does a private citizen have a legal right to buy a gun that can kill dozens of people in a minute's time? My guess is he didn't buy it to hunt quail.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Barry,

You actually clarified your comments as I was making that post. No, I do not own an assault rifle. Even though I do support gun ownership, I do feel differently about assault rifles.

Consider this though. He also had 2 Glock .40 caliber handguns and a Remington shotgun. He could have done the same amount of damage with those three even without the assualt rifle. Given the fact that 70 people were shot, it's really a miralce that more weren't were killed.

[barrysloate]

I understand David that the other guns were perfectly legal and anyone can buy them. I guess in the end there is no explanation for why someone would snap and do something like that. And I also understand he could have gotten an assault rifle illegally if he couldn't buy one in a store. I admit I don't know what the answer is. But I still believe this is a teachable moment (please don't ask me what it teaches) and having a debate about gun control is okay. We probably will never come to a meeting of the minds but I hate the fact it's always swept under the carpet because nobody wants to take on the NRA. That's all I'm saying. Any topic is fair game.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

What makes someone snap and do something like this?

I think that Barry is right about assault rifles - certainly, disasters like this would be 'not as bad' if we could keep the heavy artillery out of the equation.

But your question is the key. People tend to simply say that because this guy was ultra-prepared, that he was a sane, but extremely evil person, and should be injected immediately. Not saying that isn't true, but I can also cite examples of diagnosed mentally ill people who have done similar (e.g-guy here in Seattle who killed several people in a coffee shop in May). Treatment for such people is simply not funded well enough as we tend to fund the problems that personally affect us. More people are 'willing to admit' that they, or their loved ones, have cancer, etc., than mental illness.

So, "What makes someone snap and do something like this?" I hope we get the answer for this particular case, and that the result is that we try to stop it from happening again, as opposed to our normal reactionary solutions;e.g-the brilliant city of NY posting police outside movie theaters.

[zljones]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

He obtained the guns legally through the system. He had no criminal background or anything else that would have prevented him from purchasing them. I know that doesn't make it any easier, but given the laws what could have been done differently to keep those guns out of his hands?

What is your definition of gun control? It sounds like gun control means something different to you than it does to me. My version of gun control is to have the proper checks in place to make sure people with criminal backgrounds and/or are mentally unstable are not allowed to purchase guns and/or ammo. It sounds like your version of control is to take away all guns. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth and if I'm wrong then so be it. However, if that is the case, then please explain what gun control means to you.

The City of Chicago has gun control - some of the toughest gun laws in the nation. Yet their murder rate (by handgun) is among the highest in the nation. Bad guys will always find a way to get their hands on guns.

Maybe you're looking for answers. We all are. What makes someone snap and do something like this? Who knows? But this shouldn't be politicizd. Not now. ABC News tried to do it and it already backfired on them. I'll end with this. I pray for the victims and their families for strength and comfort in this time of tragedy.

Well said, well said. I live about 25 miles outside Chicago, and my brother lives in a rough section of the Southside. When I visit him I hear gun shots going off in the distance all night long in the Bridgeport neighborhood and Mckinnley Park. And this is the city and the state that is toughest on gun laws. Chicago Police are apathetic and often mean. My brother tried to report an attempted homicide and it took them 4 hours to get there and they didn't do anything, didn't even clean up the blood trail. The stain is actually still there 2 months later. This is the city that is toughest on gun laws; however, the murder rate is through the roof. I get sick of hearing about all these murders in Chicago. In the city where gun control is the toughest, has one of the most homicides in the nation. Police do not protect the citizens in this city too, instead residents fear the Police.
Your other comments are correct too about him being able to do the same damage with his other weapons, especially a Glock functions as a semiautomatic, and 40 caliber bullets can do alot of damage.
The main issue with all these shooters lately, is that they all want attention. They love to get media attention because they are little weiner dork boy losers that nobody likes to begin with. The media definatley gives them tons of attention when they slaughter people senslessly. Then some time later another lame little dork will do another shooting to get his fame as well.
People are now afraid to see Batman or even go to the theater. This shows fear, Americans need to stand up to this kind of crap and not let it effect their daily lives. These "shooters" are not Americans, they are terrorists and I for one do not give in to terrorism, I am thinking about buying a movie ticket for Batman this weekend.
I think there needs to be less media coverage when these things happen so the little weiner shooters do not get their fame. Plus I think it would be best for the families of the victims to mourn in peace without heavy media involvement.

[barrysloate]

Whatever spin you want to put on this, the bottom line is it is very easy for someone to buy a gun in this country. And 99% of the people who do buy them are responsible and would never use them against another person unless they were in a life and death situation. But there is a tiny percentage of gun buyers who are unstable and shouldn't be allowed to buy them. In the case of Mr. Holmes, I don't think there were any red flags, as there was nothing in his past that suggested he was insane. But in the case of someone like Jared Loughner, who committed the murders in Arizona, there were any number of red flags. And yet nothing stopped him from buying his weapons.

Somewhere along the line some of these guys could be stopped in their tracks by a simple background check. Not saying all can, but even if one or two could be caught it would save countless lives. But when this idea is brought up the NRA goes ballistic (pun intended) and nothing ever really changes.

Nobody is hurt by making it just a little more difficult for citizens to purchase guns. If you have a clean record it shouldn't matter in the least, maybe no more than filling out some paperwork. But if just one idiot is stopped because of a background check, some lives can be saved. These are small concessions but the NRA makes no concessions whatsoever. It's their extreme approach to this issue that gets a lot of people riled. There is always a middle ground that can be achieved with a little effort.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Somewhere along the line some of these guys could be stopped in their tracks by a simple background check. Not saying all can, but even if one or two could be caught it would save countless lives. But when this idea is brought up the NRA goes ballistic (pun intended) and nothing ever really changes.

Barry, with all due respect, you have your facts wrong. When one purchases a gun (any kind) in the USA from a licensed dealer, they must fill out a form from the ATF (Form 4473) and undergo a background check. The shooter in this case purchased his guns legally and did undergo a background check.

[zljones]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Whatever spin you want to put on this, the bottom line is it is very easy for someone to buy a gun in this country. And 99% of the people who do buy them are responsible and would never use them against another person unless they were in a life and death situation. But there is a tiny percentage of gun buyers who are unstable and shouldn't be allowed to buy them. In the case of Mr. Holmes, I don't think there were any red flags, as there was nothing in his past that suggested he was insane. But in the case of someone like Jared Loughner, who committed the murders in Arizona, there were any number of red flags. And yet nothing stopped him from buying his weapons.

Somewhere along the line some of these guys could be stopped in their tracks by a simple background check. Not saying all can, but even if one or two could be caught it would save countless lives. But when this idea is brought up the NRA goes ballistic (pun intended) and nothing ever really changes.

Nobody is hurt by making it just a little more difficult for citizens to purchase guns. If you have a clean record it shouldn't matter in the least, maybe no more than filling out some paperwork. But if just one idiot is stopped because of a background check, some lives can be saved. These are small concessions but the NRA makes no concessions whatsoever. It's their extreme approach to this issue that gets a lot of people riled. There is always a middle ground that can be achieved with a little effort.

I also agree here. There does need to be more background checks. The problem with Chicago is since it is such a greedy city, they charge citizens tons of money to own a gun and make them pay tons of fees, take courses that cost hundreds. The regular citizen can't afford the cost of the weapon and headache of getting certified and fees associated.
But cheap, and careful registration should be a must. I do agree with you there. And I am also glad no one ever talks about that Jerrod kid in the media anymore, he does not deserve any more attention. I almost forgot his name til you mentioned it LOL.

[barrysloate]

David- the shooter in this case had a clean record. What is so mystifying at this stage is that Holmes was a solid citizen who was working towards a PhD in neuroscience and showed virtually no antisocial tendencies at all. People who knew him had nothing bad to say about him except that he was quiet and a little standoffish. Hey, that's a pretty good description of me too.

But what about someone like Loughner? Are you telling me that he was properly vetted and nothing came up? Because that guy makes Charles Manson look like a solid citizen. He was an absolute psychopath. Exactly what does this form 4473 check out in a person's past?