37
   

Mass Shooting At Denver Batman Movie Premiere

 
 
mysteryman
 
  3  
Reply Sat 18 Aug, 2012 03:32 pm
@firefly,
And for every report of someone getting shot that you find, I can find just as many if not more where a gun saved someone's life.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Aug, 2012 04:47 pm
@mysteryman,
Quote:
And for every report of someone getting shot that you find, I can find just as many if not more where a gun saved someone's life.

That still doesn't mean we don't have a problem with gun violence--a quite serious problem.

Do you also feel that nothing should be done to cut down on the number of illegal guns in circulation or to keep guns out of the wrong hands? Do you favor making it easier for just about anyone to buy a gun?

I have relatives, friends, acquaintances, and neighbors, who own handguns--for home protection and self protection--and not a single one of them opposes better background checks, better reporting of stolen guns, and better registration of guns. There are very responsible gun owners, who do support better control over guns and gun sales, and better control over who obtains guns, and the no questions asked buy-back programs for guns, but it would be hard to know that from the sort of comments and attitudes expressed in this thread, or by the NRA.

This issue isn't gun owners vs non-gun owners, gun violence can potentially affect almost anyone in this country--and being armed yourself won't stop that. The most common weapon used in the mass shootings is a semi-automatic handgun, and that can cause multiple killings and woundings before anyone can reach for their own gun because of the element of surprise involved in these shootings. And other people being armed won't prevent all those children from being wounded and killed by stray bullets. Gun violence is everyone's problem--whether you're a gun owner or not--if you care about the society we live in and the quality of life we have.

0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Aug, 2012 06:03 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

And for every report of someone getting shot that you find, I can find just as many if not more where a gun saved someone's life.



Then do it, demonstrate instances of possession of a firearm saving someone's life within exactly the same time frame as Firefly. To strengthen your argument, make sure they're verified by an impartial third party. Redneck paranoia isn't evidence.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Aug, 2012 06:52 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
They want to talk about bombings, or burnings, or just about any other means of destroying human life, because that's how they try to deny the problem of gun violence or dodge talking about it.


We merely understand the fact that they'd be just as dead if they were killed some other way.



firefly wrote:
Quote:
Additionally, unlicensed gun sellers are not required to screen buyers at all — an enormous hole in the screening process that allows most anyone to purchase firearms....
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/244199-shooting-victims-press-obama-romney-for-tougher-gun-screenings


And yet, the NRA, and the gun enthusists in this thread, continue to oppose anything that smacks of "gun control" and any attempts to curb the gun violence. And that's the attitude that helps to keep guns in the hands of the wrong people.


Nonsense. The NRA supported a bill that would have extended background checks to unlicensed sellers at gun shows.

That bill was defeated by the gun control lobby, who objected to the fact that it required background checks be done within 24 hours.

The gun controllers felt it was more important to be able to hassle legitimate buyers with needless delays than it was to check all sales at gun shows.

(It may have been an amendment to a bill, rather than a bill -- it's been awhile.)



Quote:
NRA Locked in Gun Battle With Pennsylvania Mayors Over Town Laws
By William Selway - Aug 16, 2012

Pennsylvania’s mayors are waging a running gun battle with the National Rifle Association.

First, mayors backed a statewide law aimed at cracking down on trafficking by forcing residents to report lost and stolen firearms. The NRA opposed it, and it died in the Legislature.

Then, more than two dozen localities, led by Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, passed similar requirements on their own. An NRA-led lawsuit failed after judges said plaintiffs didn’t have standing to go to court. Now the gun-rights organization is championing a bill that would let it sue cities over the reporting rules -- even if no one is charged for breaking them.

“We continue to fight the fight realizing we don’t have enough political clout to win the battle,” said Allentown Mayor Ed Pawlowski, a Democrat whose city passed the rules. “All we’re trying to do is protect our citizens.”

What’s unfolding in Pennsylvania, where 384 people were slain last year in its four biggest cities, shows how aggressive the NRA can be in fighting what it sees as challenges to gun rights. With Congress loath to act, the battles have shifted to state capitals, where the NRA has successfully backed more expansive self-defense laws, helped defeat measures aimed at identifying guns used in crimes and supported challenges to cities that pass firearm rules...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-16/nra-locked-in-gun-battle-with-pennsylvania-mayors-over-town-laws.html


The NRA is indeed a comfort.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Aug, 2012 06:58 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
But the NRA doesn't want to make it easier to keep guns out of the wrong hands, or to curb the number of illegal guns in circulation--and apparently neither do you.


The NRA was the one who backed the bill to extend background checks to all sellers at gun shows.

And the gun control lobby were the ones that opposed it.



firefly wrote:
BillRM wrote:
The only thing you can do is interfere with law abiding citizens from being arm to roughly the same degree as the criminals.


Why should law-abiding citizens be afraid of better background checks, or necessary reporting of stolen guns, or registration measures, etc.?


Nice how you glossed over your support of unconstitutional gun bans there.

We already have gun registration; it is just decentralized. Presumably you refer to centralized gun registration.

Centralized gun registration is opposed because after the guns are registered, you'll try to ban the guns and then use the registration to track them down and seize them.

Haven't looked into the "reporting stolen guns" thing, but it's a given that the NRA is opposing it for a good reason.

Note that the NRA supports better background checks. It is you gun banners who block better background checks.



firefly wrote:
Does the problem of gun violence concern you at all? Do you even recognize that there is a problem?


As a matter of fact, there isn't a problem. Those people would be just as dead if they were killed with bombs.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Aug, 2012 07:02 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
Spend a lot of time on the darknet do you?


I've personally never heard of the darknet until just now, but in the past I've tracked down various Hiroshima-day arguments on boards across the internet so I can ruin the whine-fest that the anti-war types like to have (that's how I originally came to A2K actually).

A couple years ago I came across a VERY scary web-based messageboard. It made a point of not being able to track anyone who posted there.

About half the threads were fairly intelligent discussions that wouldn't be out of place on A2K.

The other half of the threads were people "talking shop" about how to kidnap children or drug adult women so they can be raped.

I trounced the Hiroshima thread that had led me to the site in the first place, posted in another thread to explain the Copenhagen model of quantum physics, and then bugged the hell out of there.

Place still makes my hair stand on end.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Aug, 2012 07:13 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
And for every report of someone getting shot that you find, I can find just as many if not more where a gun saved someone's life.


Then do it, demonstrate instances of possession of a firearm saving someone's life within exactly the same time frame as Firefly. To strengthen your argument, make sure they're verified by an impartial third party.


Then we can listen to you guys whine about how people are posting about DGUs instead of talking about massacres.....



izzythepush wrote:
Redneck paranoia isn't evidence.


Your bigotry is as charming as always.

Last I knew, the lowest estimate for the number of Defensive Gun Uses was a bit over 100,000 per year. And that estimate was an acknowledged undercount.

Now granted, not every DGU is a saved life. Sometimes it is just a rape that is prevented, or a robbery.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Aug, 2012 07:43 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
Centralized gun registration is opposed because after the guns are registered, you'll try to ban the guns and then use the registration to track them down and seize them.

You're like a wino who is in a panic that prohibition is coming back.

You're also a paranoid fruitcake.

Not a single gun owner I know is at all worried about that happening. Reponsible gun owners recognize there is a problem with gun violence in this country and they also want it addressed. They want better controls on gun sales, better background checks, better reporting of stolen guns, and better registration of gun owners. Responsible gun owners and users have nothing to fear from increased efforts to keep guns out of the wrong hands, and efforts to try to control the number of illegal guns in circulation, which is why the gun owners I know support such meaures.

You don't care how many people are killed by gun violence--you've already said that. If evidence of mental health was a requirement to get a gun, you might not have one.



firefly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Aug, 2012 08:22 pm
Quote:
FOCUS: Colo. shooting prompts gun bills in big states.
By DON THOMPSON
Associated Press
Aug 18, 2012

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Democratic leaders in three big states have used this summer’s Colorado mass shooting to push bills that would crack down on assault weapons and ammunition sales, rekindling a debate that has not gained much traction in Congress or the presidential campaign.

In Illinois, Gov. Pat Quinn proposed that his state enact a strict ban on assault weapons, similar to California’s. New York lawmakers have proposed wide-ranging legislation that would limit weapons purchases.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris and the Democratic state Senate leader back a bill that would make it more difficult and time-consuming to reload assault weapons. The chairmen of public safety committees in California’s Assembly and Senate co-authored a bill that would require dealers to report purchases of large quantities of ammunition to law enforcement authorities.

The suspect in the July 20 Colorado shooting, James Holmes, legally bought 6,000 rounds of ammunition online without raising authorities’ attention. He had four weapons, including an assault rifle, on him after the rampage that killed 12 people and injured 58 at a midnight movie screening.

“California sets the pace for the country. If there’s no action in Congress, we better do something here and hope it catches fire in other states,” said state Sen. Leland Yee, a San Francisco Democrat who authored the legislation that would slow down the process of reloading an assault weapon with a new magazine.

With strong support from Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo, New York lawmakers have offered a similar rationale for proposing a series of bills that together would give their state the nation’s toughest gun control laws.

“I think there is appetite for reform,” Cuomo told reporters this week. “I think that’s a good thing, and I think that’s one of the issues I’m going to have at the top of the list next January.”

Because California’s legislative session ends in a few weeks and most others are done for the year, this summer’s proposals will be addressed in earnest when lawmakers return next year. Some could be altered as lawmakers and governors test the appetite for reform in the months ahead.

But the push in some of the nation’s most populous and liberal-leaning states illustrates a national divide, often along party lines, over whether the public should have unfettered access to military-style weaponry and ammunition.

“It’s time for the people to band together in our state ... and do something about these weapons. We should remember those who lost their lives,” Quinn said last month after he added his gun control proposal onto a bill that had dealt with ammunition sales.

New York state Sen. Michael Gianaris has proposed legislation limiting firearms purchases to one a month, requiring background checks for all gun sales, a firearms safety course for gun buyers and a cooling-off period before a gun could be picked up after purchase. It also would require that sales of firearms and ammunition be reported within 24 hours.

Fellow Democratic Sen. Jose Peralta also introduced a bill that would prohibit the sale or purchase of more than 500 rounds of ammunition during any 30-day period.

“The recent rash of gun violence makes clear that enough is enough,” Gianaris said in a statement.

The leaders hope the legislation will go further than gun control bills have in Congress, where Republicans are generally opposed to further restrictions and Democrats are reluctant to engage on the issue during a presidential election year.

After the Colorado shooting, two Democrats introduced a bill that would prohibit the general public from buying thousands of rounds of ammunition by mail or online.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, said the Senate’s schedule is too crowded to allow a debate on gun control this year and has been noncommittal about whether Congress would consider the issue next year. The White House has said President Barack Obama will not push for stricter gun laws this year.

U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat from California, complained after the Colorado shooting that Congress has failed since 2004 to renew the federal assault weapons ban she authored a year after a gunman killed eight people in a San Francisco high-rise in 1993.

Nor will Congress take up the bill introduced after the Colorado shootings by U.S. Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg of New Jersey and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York.

“The reality is that these tragic shootings will continue if we can’t break the gun lobby’s stranglehold on Congress,” Lautenberg said in a statement.

Since 1990, the National Rifle Association’s political action committee and individuals associated with the NRA have contributed nearly $19 million to members or candidates for Congress, with 82 percent of those contributions going to Republicans, according to The Center for Responsive Politics in Washington, D.C.

The National Rifle Association did not respond to repeated messages left by The Associated Press over several days. Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, said the state’s current laws are already working and don’t need to be tougher. He cited a 2010 state attorney general’s report that found less than 4 percent of the weapons used in violent crimes and sent to state crime labs were assault weapons.

“We’re governed by people who have an inordinate fear, a knee-jerk, visceral, emotional reaction to guns,” Paredes said.

The divide is not just between states and the federal government, but also between Democratic- and Republican-leaning states.

In Wyoming, for example, the Republican-dominated Legislature recently passed a bill allowing residents to carry concealed guns with no permit or background check. Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, defended gun rights even after a shooting this week near Texas A&M University that killed three people including a police official and the gunman.

Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said the gun control proposals were a step in the right direction.

“There are places where we’re seeing kind of the hopeful signs,” he said. “But right now, there are far too few of them.
http://www.heraldnews.com/news/x2038877642/FOCUS-Colo-shooting-prompts-gun-bills-in-big-states#ixzz23xCpuu6e
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Aug, 2012 08:44 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
You're like a wino who is in a panic that prohibition is coming back.


Nope. I've won. I can tell you "no" when you demand gun control, and all you can do is whine helplessly.

No panic on my end.



firefly wrote:
You're also a paranoid fruitcake.


You use name-calling because you're too stupid to come up with an intelligent argument.



firefly wrote:
Not a single gun owner I know is at all worried about that happening.


Irrelevant. The answer is "no". And there is nothing you can do about it.



firefly wrote:
Reponsible gun owners recognize there is a problem with gun violence in this country and they also want it addressed. They want better controls on gun sales, better background checks, better reporting of stolen guns, and better registration of gun owners. Responsible gun owners and users have nothing to fear from increased efforts to keep guns out of the wrong hands, and efforts to try to control the number of illegal guns in circulation, which is why the gun owners I know support such meaures.


You do not speak for a single gun owner, so stop pretending that you do.



firefly wrote:
You don't care how many people are killed by gun violence--you've already said that.


Are they "more dead" if they are killed with a gun than if they are killed with a knife?



firefly wrote:
If evidence of mental health was a requirement to get a gun, you might not have one.


More childish name-calling because you are not smart enough to come up with an intelligent argument.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 18 Aug, 2012 08:46 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
In Illinois, Gov. Pat Quinn proposed that his state enact a strict ban on assault weapons, similar to California’s.


Such laws are unconstitutional. And in less than 10 years, the Supreme Court will strike them all down.



Quote:
California Attorney General Kamala Harris and the Democratic state Senate leader back a bill that would make it more difficult and time-consuming to reload assault weapons.


Curious. I wonder how they propose to achieve that.
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Sat 18 Aug, 2012 08:46 pm
@firefly,
An once more anyone who can not pass a background check can get a firearm almost as fast and in some case even faster then those who can do so.

Once more get someone to be a straw purchaser for you at a gun shop, buy the gun in a private transaction, get on the darknet and order the gun to be shipped.

Steal a firearm for that matter. Hell some of the real heavy firepower of the bank robbers of the 1930s such as Bonnie and Clyde BARS came from state guard and police armories.

So what the point in pretending we can used background checks to keep weapons out of the wrong hands.

In the history of the country I question if one felon or anyone else who had been forbidden to have a firearm could not find a way to buy one.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Sat 18 Aug, 2012 08:59 pm
@oralloy,
Oralloy Firefly keep bringing up possible bans on 'assault weapons as if that was a good thing and yet she seems not to be willing to tell us how an 'assault weapon' is in any way or in any manner more deadly then any other similar rifles.

So why is Firefly happy and support possible state bans on so call assault rifles unless she just view such bans as just the first step toward taking all firearms away from the people?
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Aug, 2012 09:03 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
Centralized gun registration is opposed because after the guns are registered, you'll try to ban the guns and then use the registration to track them down and seize them....

http://www.trbimg.com/img-5016dbf4/turbine/bal-the-nras-big-secret-nobodys-trying-to-take-your-guns-20120730/600

Want to mouth any more NRA paranoid propaganda? Laughing
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Aug, 2012 09:13 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
Oralloy Firefly keep bringing up possible bans on 'assault weapons as if that was a good thing and yet she seems not to be willing to tell us how an 'assault weapon' is in any way or in any manner more deadly then any other similar rifles.

So why is Firefly happy and support possible state bans on so call assault rifles unless she just view such bans as just the first step toward taking all firearms away from the people?


The gun banners clearly want to take all guns away from all people. They'd disarm the US military too if they could.

Luckily we have the Supreme Court defending our freedom. And the NRA and GOA blocking up Congress.

If you've ever wanted to see Democrats voting against background checks at gun shows (and Republicans voting for them), I looked up that vote where the Democrats defeated gun show background checks because they were upset that the proposed legislation required the government to complete the checks within 24 hours.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/106-1999/h244
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Sat 18 Aug, 2012 09:15 pm
@firefly,
Firefly given that you had yet to address why you support a ban on so call assault rifles that are no more dangerous then any other semi-auto rifles one is let to assume that you support such a meaningless ban in and of itself as a first step to ban all firearms down to muzzle loaders.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Aug, 2012 09:23 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Centralized gun registration is opposed because after the guns are registered, you'll try to ban the guns and then use the registration to track them down and seize them....


http://www.trbimg.com/img-5016dbf4/turbine/bal-the-nras-big-secret-nobodys-trying-to-take-your-guns-20120730/600

Want to mouth any more NRA paranoid propaganda? Laughing


No such paranoid propaganda. Your vile posts are quite contrary to the position ascribed to the Democrats in that cartoon.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Aug, 2012 09:37 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
If you've ever wanted to see Democrats voting against background checks at gun shows (and Republicans voting for them), I looked up that vote where the Democrats defeated gun show background checks because they were upset that the proposed legislation required that the government complete the checks within 24 hours.

Why insist on the the need to complete background checks in only 24 hours? The idea is to have a careful background check and not one that is arbitrarily rushed through and doesn't serve its purpose.

With every gun control measure, the NRA-controlled Republicans have either insisted on loop-holes, or weakened the legislation in such a way that it became largely ineffective. Then they turn around and say, "You see, gun control doesn't work".
Quote:
The gun banners clearly want to take all guns away from all people.

Really? I don't hear people saying that.

You can't differentiate between meaningful gun control, to try to contain the distribution and circulation of illegal weapons, and to try to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people, and to try to stem the amount of senseless gun violence going on in this country, and your paranoid fantasies that someone is going to deprive you of your guns.

I don't doubt that you are an inadequate quivering mass of anxiety without your gun, because you're the only person I've ever heard say that they felt so uncomfortable in Canada, because they had to walk around unarmed, that they couldn't wait to get home. Talk about being a wuss. Laughing

Poor baby, no one is coming for your gun(s). Laughing

But, as I said before, if they ever require evidence of mental health for gun possession, then you really might be in trouble. Laughing

BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Sat 18 Aug, 2012 09:47 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Really? I don't hear people saying that.


Oh then what is the logical reason to support banning a type of weapon that is in fact no difference then others types except for it big bad name of an assault rifle , if the purpose is not to just start the old ball rolling on banning one type of firearms after another until we get down to muzzle loaders?

The reason we are not hearing that there is a wish to ban all firearms seems base on people like you willingness to be dishonest in the name of a good cause not that there is not such a wish that is more likely to be achieved in your thinking by hiding the end goal.
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Sat 18 Aug, 2012 09:55 pm
My bet that in a ideal Firefly universe that if you wish to go game hunting you better be able to handle a bow and more then likely there will be a background check before you can own a bow.

Hmm maybe in this universe you would not be allow to own such a deadly weapon but only rent it during hunting season after a background check of course.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Information About Denver, CO. Wanted - Discussion by Aldistar
Maryjane - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Car Services to Airport? - Discussion by Steve Spencer
Expressmens Union Denver, Colo - Question by deegeez
So, do you think this is demonic? - Discussion by ossobuco
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/22/2025 at 07:02:41