1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Police: 13 dead; 58 injured in Colorado theater shooting

Discussion in 'The OT' started by Unknown, Jul 20, 2012.

  1. SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,262
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    Civilian vehicles are designed for transportation and are not equipped with artillery or other munitions. Any associated deaths, whether accidental or intentional are not by design of the manufacturer.
     
  2. RunnerFL

    RunnerFL Well-Known Member

    17,054
    312
    Jan 4, 2006
    So? "Civilian vehicles" still kill more people than guns.

    And thanks for the proof that you are purposefully overlooking the fact that the assault rifle jammed and the shotgun and handgun did more damage. That helps solidify my point.
     
  3. runner861

    runner861 Icon

    859
    0
    Mar 20, 2010
    It is not a fair comparison. It is a comparison designed to distract from, rather than promote, healthy discussion.
     
  4. Phil T

    Phil T Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    2,357
    29
    Mar 25, 2002
    Littleton,...
    And how many more would have been killed if it didn't jam?
     
  5. phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,082
    327
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    The issue is the "purpose" of the item. The purpose of an automobile is transportation. The "purpose" of an AR-15 assault rifle is to kill people. Properly trained, one can fire as many as 50 shots a minute with a reasonable degree of accuracy. It's a great weapon for killing people because that's what it was designed for.

    It's hard to understand how people can defend the right to bear arms as applying to assault weapons. And just because someone might think a working M65 Atomic Cannon might be intriguing and fun to own, most Americans do agree that we have to draw a line somewhere.

    I'd draw the line at rapid fire, large magazine assault rifles. After all, Holmes still had a shotgun and a semiautomatic pistol which was enough to feed his delusion.

    In 1994, Congress made it illegal for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess an assault weapon such as an AR-15. The law also limited the magazine size to 10 bullets.

    Yes, people got around the law. Gun manufacturers modified or even simply renamed the weapons. It could have been written better at renewal time. Instead, after intense antirenewal efforts by the National Rifle Association and House Republicans, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004.
     
  6. MysteryMan

    MysteryMan Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    8,711
    585
    May 17, 2010
    USA
    The AK-47 is one of the finest combat rifles ever made. But as you and I are well aware it is not standard issue for U.S. forces with the exception of special operations units and then only when mission criteria calls for it. As for the president's statement he either intentionally misled the public or he and his advisors have limited knowledge of our armed forces and assault rifles. Either way it makes one question his ability to continue being our president. The rifles labeled as assault rifles by the anti gun mucky mucks are "semi" automatic versions of their "military" counterparts and are no more dangerous than a Remington repeating rifle or a pumb action shot gun. Those of us who legally purchased and own assault rifles were grandfathered from the now expired assault rifle ban.
     
  7. RunnerFL

    RunnerFL Well-Known Member

    17,054
    312
    Jan 4, 2006
    There's no point in asking that, it did jam.
     
  8. runner861

    runner861 Icon

    859
    0
    Mar 20, 2010
    This is exactly correct. And we as citizens, who are, after all, who Congress is working for, need to stand up to the special interests and get the law renewed. We need to make it clear to our representatives in Congress that we insist on no less. We can no longer allow the special interests to compromise public safety.
     
  9. MysteryMan

    MysteryMan Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    8,711
    585
    May 17, 2010
    USA
    Yet both are incapable of killing unless a human is involved. Hence the saying "Guns don't kill people, people kill people".
     
  10. RunnerFL

    RunnerFL Well-Known Member

    17,054
    312
    Jan 4, 2006
    Not true at all. The purpose of an AR-15 is not to kill people. It's not marketed or sold that way.


    There is already a line there. Fully automatic weapons are illegal. Large magazines are a different story since they aren't what the gun itself comes with. I've got no problem regulating large magazines.

    Which is exactly my point. He could have done the same amount of damage even without an assault rifle so if there were/was a ban on them it wouldn't matter and wouldn't have stopped him.

    And they always will. If someone wants to cause harm with such a weapon you're not going to stop them from getting one whether you ban them or not.
     
  11. sigma1914

    sigma1914 Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    14,611
    373
    Sep 5, 2006
    Allen, TX
    What justifiable reason does a person need an AR-15?


    [​IMG]
     
  12. RunnerFL

    RunnerFL Well-Known Member

    17,054
    312
    Jan 4, 2006
    I completely agree with you on all points.
     
  13. RunnerFL

    RunnerFL Well-Known Member

    17,054
    312
    Jan 4, 2006
    There are very few things in this world that are capable of killing without human intervention that aren't part of the animal kingdom.

    There's nothing in this world that can't kill you somehow.
     
  14. RunnerFL

    RunnerFL Well-Known Member

    17,054
    312
    Jan 4, 2006
    Configured the way the one in the picture provided is? None... Silencers are illegal and should remain that way. I believe the picture you've provided is of an AR-15 (I don't know how many times now I've almost typed HR-15 :lol:) setup for military use. A legally configured one looks a bit different.

    This is a legally configured "civilian" AR-15:

    http://www.gunlistings.org/illinois-gun-classifieds/chicago/rifles/90527/colt_ar_15

    Or if black isn't your color:

    http://hypebeast.com/2008/01/hello-kitty-x-ar-15-rifle/
     
  15. MysteryMan

    MysteryMan Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    8,711
    585
    May 17, 2010
    USA
    I guess you didn't see my post where I stated many members of the National Guard legally purchased and own a AR-15 to maintain their marksmanship skills because their units only go to the rifle range once a year. Since JFK's assassination the anti gun mucky mucks have lobbied thousands of gun control laws that have done nothing to stop crime and violence and only hamper law abiding citizens who wish to legally purchase and own firearms. As for the automobile Ted Kennedy's car killed more people than several of the firearms I legally purchased and own. :sure:
     
  16. trh

    trh This Space for Sale

    5,808
    304
    Nov 2, 2007
    NE FL
    I'll support a ban on any Kennedy driving a car. :D
     
  17. RunnerFL

    RunnerFL Well-Known Member

    17,054
    312
    Jan 4, 2006
    Or flying a plane. :D
     
  18. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,623
    385
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Without getting into all the nuances... clearly even the NRA doesn't want people to just have any possible weapon. I mean, we don't want Joe Citizen to have a tank or a bazooka or a nuclear weapon, right? So... we're not arguing over whether there should be a limit or not... just where that limit should be!

    To me, that's an aside to this issue though... because even making everything that guy had illegal wouldn't have stopped someone who wanted them from getting them and trying to use them to kill people. I agree with some gun control, but I'm not naive enough to think making something illegal stops it from happening.

    That's why I keep encouraging security improvements.

    True. My argument is based on the premise that someone could have and possibly should have noticed some of these things. But that is just in regards to this guy being on a "watch list"... failing all of that, my primary argument has been that better security would have made this event less likely to be successful on the attacker's part... and that wouldn't have required all the foreknowledge that might have caught him earlier.

    As I have said, though... our government and law enforcement is spending money and time doing just as I suggest! They are already doing this... but they are targeting only certain kinds of people. See the other thread I started about NYPD conducting surveillance in New Jersey... the point is, if they put that effort into all possible credible threats and not just ones by people with foreign-sounding names... maybe this guy would have made the watch list.

    While the 9/11 event killed the most people... we have had more homegrown internal terrorist activities on a per-event basis... and I don't know why we can put the same efforts towards watching for that as we do for perceived foreign-sounding-named-people threats.

    I guarantee you that if this guy had a foreign-sounding name... all the stuff I've gone over would have resulted in him being watched more closely than he was by being an average white guy.
     
  19. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    46,124
    1,068
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    I have noted a few political swipes in the tread today.

    Please - stop commenting on politics and politicians!
     
  20. phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,082
    327
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    The problem with that solution is whenever some guy goes nuts who possesses and knows how to use an assault rifle, you likely will get security and/or law enforcement personnel killed.

    Sometimes we're harder on ourselves as a nation than we need to be. Consider Anders Breivik who in June at the end of his trial for a bombing and shooting rampage last year that killed 77 people said it was necessary to defend Norway from multiculturalism. Norway is considerably tighter in its laws, but he still managed to act out his delusions.

    IMHO we need to address our mental health service systems. But that's a can of worms everyone seems to be afraid of.
     

Share This Page