Colorado Governor Hickenlooper won’t blame gun laws for theater shooting

[Arkady Renko]

Here's my problem with the "Assault Weapons Ban"

Define for me an Assault weapon.

Let's be clear. An AR-15 is NOT a military rifle in the sense that it is fully automatic. It LOOKS like an AR-16 which is fully automatic (or was when I was active duty, now they have that silly 3 round bust pos) I do believe that there is no conceivable reason why a private citizen needs a fully auto weapon. Semi auto on the other hand, yes, those should be available. Take away semi auto weapons, and you are left with pump action, lever action, revolvers or single shot weapons. These are not viable means of defense, as referenced by the 2nd amendment imho.
Being as this guy used firearms ( for lack of evidence otherwise, I will assume he got them legally) you can make a case that he shouldn't have had the ability to do so. But, how do you decide that? He was not a prior criminal, so, he did in fact have the right to purchase firearms. There is already a background check required before you can purchase a firearm from a dealer, plus whatever else my be local to Aurora, what more do you need/want? Do you want firearms taken away totally? Only way this can happen in the US is to change the 2nd amendment, which due to what would be needed, won't happen in our lifetime, and will in my opinion, only result in criminals having firearms. That's gonna work well too.

For those who blame the guns (or ease of access to such) I'd like to see a well thought out reply to how you would legally, and legitimately stop something like this from happening again. Let's not forget Norway (about a year ago iirc) and what happened there with some of the most strict firearms laws in the western world.

I really would like to know your opinion on how to prevent these things from happening.

it's all about the odds. Even in a country like Norway, a guy like Breivik who set his mind to it and spent years planning the attacks in Utoya island, will have a good chance of accomplishing what he set out to do. It would require a nightmarish police/surveillance state to prevent crimes like Breivik's altogehter and even so the odd particularly clever madman would find a way to proxy the safeguards. BUT what they do achieve there is that a case like Breivik's is the one case they've had since their country was founded. In the US on the other hand, there's a history of killing sprees in fairly close succession, to a point where people have somehow gotten used to it. Only the most drastic cases such as Columbine, Virginia Tech or the current case make waves anymore. Someone snaps and goes berzerk, odds are it'll get a lot uglier if they have easy access to guns, more so when it's assault rifles. After all, there's a reason soldiers don't go into battle with a baseball bat or a hunting rifle.

[FBD]

no, it doesnt require a nightmarish police state. ffs, I'm at a loss to understand why non-americans just dont seem to get this.

look, the dude came heavily armored and had an exit plan. he didnt want to die in that movie theater.

as is proven time and again, the greatest deterrent to some fuck doing something like this is the notion that there is likely half a dozen concealed carry motherfuckers in the location he is thinking of attacking. that changes all of the odds hugely right there, does not require any police state -

all it requires is that the government trust its citizens with rights they already have.

[Acid Trip]

no, it doesnt require a nightmarish police state. ffs, I'm at a loss to understand why non-americans just dont seem to get this.

look, the dude came heavily armored and had an exit plan. he didnt want to die in that movie theater.

as is proven time and again, the greatest deterrent to some fuck doing something like this is the notion that there is likely half a dozen concealed carry motherfuckers in the location he is thinking of attacking. that changes all of the odds hugely right there, does not require any police state -

all it requires is that the government trust its citizens with rights they already have.

[Arkady Renko]

ffs, I'm at a loss to understand why non-americans just dont seem to get this.

easily explained for me: because guns are not our national fetish, cars are.

Apart from that, your logic is too simplistic. You assume blindly that somehow magically guns will regularly end up in the hands of responsible people with the odd exception.

[Jezter]

no, it doesnt require a nightmarish police state. ffs, I'm at a loss to understand why non-americans just dont seem to get this.

look, the dude came heavily armored and had an exit plan. he didnt want to die in that movie theater.

as is proven time and again, the greatest deterrent to some fuck doing something like this is the notion that there is likely half a dozen concealed carry motherfuckers in the location he is thinking of attacking. that changes all of the odds hugely right there, does not require any police state -

all it requires is that the government trust its citizens with rights they already have.

So arming everyone up to their teeth to make you all one man/woman armies is the answer? Shoot first or be shot? Yeah...that's awesome.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

So arming everyone up to their teeth to make you all one man/woman armies is the answer? Shoot first or be shot? Yeah...that's awesome.

Not exactly, but when an asshole like this walks in and opens fire, you have a way to retaliate.

[Jezter]

Not exactly, but when an asshole like this walks in and opens fire, you have a way to retaliate.

Provided you have not already been hit, that you can aim in the chaos, you have not already shat yourself trying to get cover, can function in the chaos and panic... all the while dude is laying down a barrage out of his automatic weapon.

[FBD]

Sorry Jez, your argument is still swiss cheese.

What is the only thing that stops these mass murder events from continuing? The arrival of firepower on the 'good' side.

Concealed carry is not one being "armed to the teeth" by any sense of the word. Like Porky said, it is a means for honest, law abiding citizens to protect themselves. The perps dont give two shits about the law, and these restrictions merely guarantee that the nutjob hellbent on a sensational event is going after an unarmed crowd. Like in my example, what if there were two...three...six concealed carry operators in the fully packed theater? Changes the equation just a bit, dunnit?

I know, its nice to imagine a peaceful world with no guns, bad guys, full of hope, love, and unicorns, but let's be honest - that's a fkn fairytale and you know it.

And..."somehow" guns wind up in the hands of responsible people?? wth? That is called an informed and responsible citizenry going forth and exercising their right to protect themselves. If there werent such a stigma from the progressives who want a disarmed citizenry, you wouldnt have "guns are bad, mkay, only evil people have guns," you'd have knowledgeable and experienced everyday people right there in the woodwork, the vast majority you never even know are packing...until the shit hits the fan and instead of the entire crowd cowering at the sight of one person with a firearm, you have a good handful or more that are well prepared to protect the lives of innocents.

Provided you havent already been hit my ass - one can come up with endless little revisions to the story that attempt to throw a monkey wrench into the argument. They dont work, they do not even so much as chip away at the premise of my argument.

[Acid Trip]

If nobody but "the authority" has guns then what's to stop said authority from imposing their will on the people? Nothing.

Let's look at Syria. The Syrian people started protesting and the government started killing them. Now the rebels have weapons and the established authority is starting to collapse. It took organization and guns before the Syrian people could get their point across to their armed masters. So without weapons a revolution (good or bad) cannot happen.

Free speech and everything else you Europeans/Australians/Asians/Africans/Americans take for granted were won for you by people who were carrying guns!

Ironic isn't it?

[Jezter]

There couldn't be much more different views and people than me vs. AT & FBD... and well, pretty much anyone else than HAL and JoeyB. I feel so alone at times trying to bring my views just get walls of text telling me my why opinion is so wrong. It is almost funny at times. So that is the good thing. And that I don't get butthurt too easy.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

[Jezter]

[Hugh_Janus]

Not exactly, but when an asshole like this walks in and opens fire, you have a way to retaliate.

this is the bit I like....

what if as FBD says, there are 6 people retaliating and in the confusion, every motherfucker starts shooting at every other motherfucker?

[Muddy]

this is the bit I like....

what if as FBD says, there are 6 people retaliating and in the confusion, every motherfucker starts shooting at every other motherfucker?

Well... guns are legal and no one retaliated so it's a moot point...

[Teh One Who Knocks]

this is the bit I like....

what if as FBD says, there are 6 people retaliating and in the confusion, every motherfucker starts shooting at every other motherfucker?

If "ifs and buts" were candy and nuts, every day would be Christmas