• 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.
Eh, there are plenty of "bush league" competitions out there, some are paramilitary based. I know that drum mags are for suppression but it doesn't really get into the realm of extreme danger for the average gun owner to have over anything else, IOW a weapon is only as dangerous as the handler.

Actually no. I think for myself and base it on the fundamentals of liberty and rights, for something to be banned within those rights there is a heavy burden of proof that has to be held to account, for instance large magazines are as you've put it and I frankly agree not the tactical advantage the anti-gun side claims them to be, casual shooters as has been pointed out would be better served with banana clips or mid-sized magazines anyway. I don't base rights upon need however.

I shoot, I understand that you are military and I know that pressure changes aren't as easy as firing range changes however they aren't quite as difficult as you make them out to be. Multiple mags versus large mags is not IMO such a large gap as to require a ban on high capacity.
 
from 78640


First, we have no pumped 'endless tax money' into what you refer to as the hood. There is no true or real war on drugs beyond a PR name. I do not get your point about government funds and the killer.




My statement about 99% effective referred to the no gun zones that the right seems to be demonizing in this thread.

If you want to make the case that our big cities will be safer when we start abandoning assistance to people, I would like to read it.


I have no idea what this has to do with a national discussion about firearms.

More gov't "help" is not working, so let us try less gov't "help", more law enforcement and stop trying to blame THINGS for the behavior problems of 1% to 2% of our criminal morons.
Click to expand...

News bulletin: law enforcement is the function of the government. You want it both ways.
 
Dittohead not! said:
By that measure, there is no war on terror, either.
Click to expand...

If you want to make that case, I would be happy to read your argument. However, I have made the case for the lack of a true war on drugs.
 
Guns are not the problem, nor are bullets. People are.
 
What I mean to say by that is...what we should REALLY be discussing in this thread, to remain relevant, is not gun control...but the who's and why's of this tragedy. Until then, all the gun control in the world is not going to prevent another tragedy just like this one.
 
AdamT said:
You just want to be able to buy any erectile disfunction toy you can lay your hands on and could not give a **** if innocent children are mowed down in movie theaters.

Again ... to borrow your argument style.
Click to expand...


the inherent idiocy of the anti gun psychobabblers is evident in this above drivel
 
There are estimated to be around 52 million households in the US who own guns.

If guns are the issue, why are there not 52 million murders, or 52 million MASS murders, in the US?
 
apdst said:
Never said it was. However, doing nothing guarantees that his aim and his intention won't be comprimised. I'll choose returning fire over cowering on the floor waiting for my turn to die. That's just me.
Click to expand...

I'd choose that, too. I'm not arguing for gun control here, I'm arguing against the idea that someone else in that theater with a firearm would definitely have prevented this. There's no way to know that for sure. It's just as absurd to say that it would have prevented it as it is to say that gun laws would have prevented it.

However, I do agree with you that having some chance to stop it is better than having no chance. This is why I oppose the vast majority of gun control laws.
 

Pretty much my stance in a nutshell. It's always easy to apply an argument retroactively to a tragedy in order to pretend that it would definitely have prevented it.

Those retroactive arguments tend to do a great job of "convincing" people who are already convinced.
 
Dittohead not! said:
By that measure, there is no war on terror, either.
Click to expand...

There is a war on terror but only because we have been causing that terror.....which is at least one reason why we have so many social terrorist attacks.
 
I carry a pistol everyday and everywhere. Add to this tragedy that not a single shot was fired at the murderer. This is not a gun control issue. This pscho planned this massacre for MONTHS in advance. The bombs he planted in his apartment were not guns. Murderers never stop for lack of a means to kill, they simply kill by any means possible.
 


I have an answer. More funding and better training of ATF agents + better coordination with local law enforcement.

Wouldn't the gun lobby agree that anyone breaking a gun law should be arrested?


Then we need to have undercover ATF agents at every gun show. Also, gun and ammo sales over the internet need to be more closely monitored.
 

The theater was in a gun free zone.
 

Bull****. I can get a gun within a few hours illegally if I wanted to without setting foot in a gun show. If people want to use a gun for murder, as was the case here, they'll find a way to get the gun somehow. It's just like drugs. People find em, and no matter how many laws are thrown into the mix, they keep finding them.
 

"many profit handsomely along the way" is the real reason the so called "wars" have gone on as long as they have, that and the fact that it gives government an excuse to grab more power.
 

I would rather die protecting people, than run like a coward. I would have preferred to be shot, than the 6yr old.
 
Aberration said:
I would rather die protecting people, than run like a coward. I would have preferred to be shot, than the 6yr old.
Click to expand...

My rational self interest says Life > Death. :shrug:
 

Could you really? I wouldn't have the first clue where or how to obtain a gun illegally.
 
Cite a competition where 100 round drums are used that is IPSC, USPSA, IDPA, etc recognized and I will cede this point. You won't find it btw.
Large magazines allow longer time on target. No other way to spin it, no other way to say it. You can argue semantics of mag changes all you want. The average mag change takes approximately 3-5 seconds. That is about 9-15 more rounds the shooter gets off with a large mag. Not to mention the time needed to settle back into shooting position, reacquire targets, and start pulling again. You're looking at about 20 less rounds the individual shoots due to that mag change.
What right do we have to own a 100 round drum or body armor? I'm not saying we should restrict guns. I'm saying we should restrict an accessory that has no practical application in the civilian world. Should 203 grenade launchers be legal to sell? They are an AR platform accessory. There is a fine line between "rights" and empowering someone to be dangerous. Once of the main roles of the Federal gov't is to protect the people. I don't agree with laws that protect me from myself. This isn't one of those. This is protecting people from other people who would do them harm. Again, there is no other application in the civilian world where a 100 round drum is needed.
LaMidRighter said:
I shoot, I understand that you are military and I know that pressure changes aren't as easy as firing range changes
Click to expand...
This......
LaMidRighter said:
however they aren't quite as difficult as you make them out to be. Multiple mags versus large mags is not IMO such a large gap as to require a ban on high capacity.
Click to expand...
disproves this.
 
AdamT said:
Could you really? I wouldn't have the first clue where or how to obtain a gun illegally.
Click to expand...

Really? This seems pretty obvious.
 
The average criminal can get an illegal gun in less time than it takes a person to legally buy one, they know who has what already. It took me 30 minutes to buy mine legally because of the paperwork and background checks and cost me multiple hundreds. The average crook can buy a filed gun for probably about 40$ in five minutes. Oh, and my city/state didn't have a waiting period, much like most "psst, come here" shops.
 
AdamT said:
Could you really? I wouldn't have the first clue where or how to obtain a gun illegally.
Click to expand...

Yep, no problem. If you know how to get your hands on some hard illegal drugs like crack, meth, or heroin, or you know someone who does (and I assume that most people do know at least one person who has battled a serious drug problem), then you can get a gun illegally pretty easily, too.

****, if you know the location of a halfway house in your area, you could probably figure out how to get a gun. All you have to do is figure out which guy nearby said halfway house is the local dealer and get him to move you down along the line to get the gun. You gotta do it without making yourself look like a cop or getting yourself killed, of course, but it's not like committing crimes is a risk-free venture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…