OT: Colorado shooting

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

I already made my point several pages back. You either didn't see, ignored it or don't comprehend it. My point is this. The shooter had 4 weapons: an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, 2 Glock 40 caliber handguns and 1 Remington pump action shotgun. He could have done the same amount of damage with just one handgun and multiple loaded clips as he did with all 4 guns. A Glock 40 caliber with 4 loaded clips can be expended in under a minute. He didn't need ther other three guns.

Let's just say for a minute that the shooter only had one hand gun with multiple loaded clip and the carnage was still the same. Now what's your argument?

I already addressed this (in at 3 prior posts). For example post #72:
"I think it [civilization] could very well continue without private ownership of guns that have a large magazine capacity and a high rate of fire."

This problem of course includes the Glock - it is of course now ubiquitous and a major problem.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

"I think it [civilization] could very well continue without private ownership of guns that have a large magazine capacity and a high rate of fire."

My Glock holds 10 rounds. I do not consider that a "large magazine capacity." I think most would agree.

In other words if the shooter had killed his victims with a 6 shot revolver, we wouldn't be having a discussion on gun control? Is that what you're saying? Do you really, really believe that?

[packs]

Saying less guns equals less deaths is an easy solution to a complicated problem. I don't see any truth in that statement either. To say that simply eliminating guns would solve the problem of mass murders or murderers in general seems overly simplistic. To say that shooting a gun makes killing people easier I think is false as well. What makes it hard for most people to kill are the moral questions surrounding the act, not the method. Eliminate the morality and it becomes very easy.

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by packs

Saying less guns equals less deaths is an easy solution to a complicated problem. I don't see any truth in that statement either. To say that simply eliminating guns would solve the problem of mass murders or murderers in general seems overly simplistic.

I've mostly stayed out of today's discussion but I can't bear seeing Mark take it on the chin. So I am going to say one final thing, and feel free to respond, but I won't be back. Promise this is my last post on this thread.

For those who don't want to see any changes made in the gun laws, did it ever cross your mind that even though the most determined killers will probably still reek their havoc regardless of the laws, isn't it within the realm of possibility that maybe one or two people might get caught with tougher laws in place? And if even one person is stopped, wouldn't that save the life of somebody's spouse or child or parent?

No constitutional rights would be violated if the assault ban went back into effect. If you want a hunting rifle you are legally able to have one. If you want to carry a handgun for protection you are allowed to. But the constitution doesn't give you the right to have any weapon you want to, or to build up an arsenal like this Colorado idiot.

We always make distinctions in life. There are powerful drugs that are legal- codeine and xanax come to mind- and there are powerful drugs such as heroin and meth that are not. Society makes distinctions and we accept them. And it's okay to distinguish between different types of guns too.

But instead of looking at the problem in the most open minded way possible, too many people stand behind a very rigid interpretation of what the government may or may not be allowed to do. But the NRA won't even budge a fraction of an inch on anything. There isn't a modicum of flexibility in any gun law whatsoever.

Maybe nearly every deranged individual who wants to kill still will do so even if assasult weapons were banned. I don't know what's inside the heart of these maniacs. But maybe, just maybe, one person will be stopped in his tracks. If there were some kind of database to check gun and ammunition purchases, perhaps somebody would have noticed that Mr. Holmes was buying 6000 bullets and reported it to the feds. And maybe the feds would have decided to question him. I don't know, it's pure speculation.

But if you believe that the status quo is all we need, then the status quo is what we are going to have.

And with that gentlemen, I bid you a good evening. I won't be posting here again. Thanks for listening.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

For those who don't want to see any changes made in the gun laws, did it ever cross your mind that even though the most determined killers will probably still reek their havoc regardless of the laws, isn't it within the realm of possibility that maybe one or two people might get caught with tougher laws in place? And if even one person is stopped, wouldn't that save the life of somebody's spouse or child or parent?

Barry, you're absolutely right. However, in reading this thread, I didn't see anybody say that the gun laws didn't need to be changed. You certainly won't hear that from me. Heck, I even gave a few suggestions on how we could tighten gun laws. Others did too. I'm not sure where you get "For those who don't want to see any changes made in the gun laws..."

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

My Glock holds 10 rounds. I do not consider that a "large magazine capacity." I think most would agree.

In other words if the shooter had killed his victims with a 6 shot revolver, we wouldn't be having a discussion on gun control? Is that what you're saying? Do you really, really believe that?

You wouldn't be having it with me, and the toll would likely be lower. Do you really, really believe he would not have killed more people with a fully automatic weapon?

As to the Glock - the rate of fire plus the fast reload is something that in my view we don't need, though I do appreciate that some may feel they need such a thing for personal protection. However, some may feel that they need a fully automatic weapon for personal protection.

[Peter_Spaeth]

We have a murder rate much much higher than Western Europe, Canada, etc. but obviously that has nothing to do with differences in the availability of guns.