Gun Control-Here we go again.

[scotty]

Mass shooting prompts calls from Capitol Hill and beyond for tighter gun laws

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/21/mass-shooting-prompts-calls-from-capitol-hill-and-beyond-for-tighter-gun-laws/#ixzz21Lyqr89W

I am an active supporter of the right to bear arms. I both hunt and target shoot. Own handguns, rifles, and shotguns.

The Senator here is wanting to ban high capacity magazines. The first point I would like to make, as I'm sure RandyWayne can agree. High capacity clips had nothing to do with the Colorado shooting. Yes, it allowed him to fire off more rounds consecutively, but the time it takes one to drop a clip from an AR15, slap another one in, and chamber the first round is about 5 seconds. (for someone practiced, 10 seconds for a newbie) So the fact is, high capacity clips might have saved 1 in the overall scheme of the shooting. Or he could have stood there an extra 1 minute and still done the same damage.

Now, that being said, can any of you fellow gun owners think of any reasons at all why we would be against this ban? Personally, I see no need for high capacity clips. Other than having to stop and reload when target practicing, which I can live with. And for hunting, well, as grandpa always said, if it takes you more than one round you need to go back and shoot some more cans.

So honestly, if the ban covers JUST high capacity magazines, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

What say ye ?

[Cindy]

What about knives, blunt objects, etc............?

[scotty]

What about knives, blunt objects, etc............?

Well that falls back on the fact that people kill people, regardless of what weapon they use. In this case the weapon allowed him to kill more at one time.

I doubt they will go after gun control altogether. The article goes on to point out that everytime the Dems pass a gun control measure they lose seats in the following election.

[RandyWayne]

How much magazine capacity it "too much!"? The arbitrary number given is usually 10 but why 10? My Ruger 9mm clips are 15, my AR is 30, and I have have a banana clip for my 22LR of 25. Why is the number 10 so magical?

And if it really ISN'T magical then why make the law and create even more precedent for further gun control under the guise of "We have to do something!"?

[RandyWayne]

And I still believe this whole shooting was a major hoax. After all, the shooter, Holmes, couldn't have had a gun in that particular theater -they weren't allowed in it! The "No Firearms!" sign on the front should have told him that!

I mean HAD he taken a gun into that theater he would have been breaking the "No Firearms!" allowed policy of the establishment and would have REALLY been breaking the law! At least all the law abiding carriers of concealed firearms had the good sense to not break that particular rule!

[BroJoe]

I wonder what would have happened had 2 or 3 people been armed in that theatre...

I wonder what would have happened had a few people decided to fight back.

I wonder...

Instead...we will now decided whether or not to take what little teeth we have to bite, away from us...

[scotty]

I wonder what would have happened had 2 or 3 people been armed in that theatre...

I wonder what would have happened had a few people decided to fight back.

I wonder...

Instead...we will now decided whether or not to take what little teeth we have to bite, away from us...

Then 2 or 3 more people would have died.

Lets not forget the body armour he had on. If someone had returned fire it would have been useless, plus they would have been singled out by him and unless body armour was the dress code for the day, they would have died.

I see the point your making and I agree with the premise, but in this case returning fire would have done nothing more than made you a prime target.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Limiting magazine capacity is almost a pointless gesture.

We don't need symbolism and we don't need a knee-jerk reaction to a senseless tragedy.

I am against this 100%

Now, in times past I have been in favor of limiting the types of guns and rifles that can be bought by civilians.

There's no need for a civilian to have a machine gun or rocket launcher.

I am unsure how I feel about civilians having the ability to purchase AR-15's. Just don't see the civilian purpose, but don't want to open the door any wider to restrict any more freedom either.

[Hoovie]

I have not heard how he got in there with the mask and guns.

I am not in Favor of gun control, neither am I convinced fewer people would have died had this criminal been law abiding in regards to purchasing weapons with greater restrictions.

[ground000]

Shall we put a law restricting body armour as well? :P. Laws like that don't work. If you think about it, whose going to obey the law? All the law-abiding citizens! Whose going to break it? The very ones who are breaking it now! It doesn't do anything EXCEPT, slowly take the freedom we once had and which your forefathers fought for.
Any type of laws restricting firearms, etc, I'm against. There are way too many (over here in Aussie it's ridiculous).

For example, did you know that I can't buy a little knife whose blade can only extend 2 cm at the most because I'm not 18? I mean, get real! Are you kidding me? I have MADE knives that are far more deadly than that little thing.

Ooops. Did I mention that rocks are really hard objects and possible murder weapons? Hmmmmm . . . . . next headline . . . . state government looks to ban rocks for all under-age adults. :P

[Hoovie]

As usual the one with evil intent is not effected by the laws forbidding him from carrying and killing. Why would there be a law forbidding trained law-abiding persons from carrying a gun in a theater? I disagree that more would have died. The second or third shot would have went to the head.

[Jermyn Davidson]

As usual the one with evil intent is not effected by the laws forbidding him from cerring and killing. Why would there be a law forbidding trained law-abiding persons from carrying a gun in a theater? I disagree that more would have died. The second or third shot would have went to the head.

Or it could have become an even bloodier scene with the chaos of rounds flying in all directions.

If more people were armed and decided in this situation to fire back, there would have been more death.

[RandyWayne]

Then 2 or 3 more people would have died.

Lets not forget the body armour he had on. If someone had returned fire it would have been useless, plus they would have been singled out by him and unless body armour was the dress code for the day, they would have died.

I see the point your making and I agree with the premise, but in this case returning fire would have done nothing more than made you a prime target.

Very likely 2 or 3 firing (and hitting him) WOULD have ended the rampage quickly. Body armor isn't a magical substance which bullets bounce off of leaving the wearer unharmed. While BA does save lives by keeping nearly all rounds from penetrating it still feels like your being punched when hit with a round. The bullet can even break bones through it! Yes, 2 or 3 firing at him would have ended it after getting disoriented but from the body blows and finally getting shot in the head/arms/legs.

[BroJoe]

Hoovie: I have not heard how he got in there with the mask and guns.

He came in plainly dressed, sat in the front row until the previews started. At which point, he got up and walked out of the emergency exit door in the theater and held it open with something while he went and dressed up at his car. Then he came back in and blasted

Scotty: Then 2 or 3 more people would have died.

Lets not forget the body armour he had on. If someone had returned fire it would have been useless, plus they would have been singled out by him and unless body armour was the dress code for the day, they would have died.

I see the point your making and I agree with the premise, but in this case returning fire would have done nothing more than made you a prime target.

It was bullet resistant, not bulletproof. My point is that we, as a society, have been toothless kittens, unable to fight back when something is threatening us.

[BroJoe]

Very likely 2 or 3 firing (and hitting him) WOULD have ended the rampage quickly. Body armor isn't a magical substance which bullets bounce off of leaving the wearer unharmed. While BA does save lives by keeping nearly all rounds from penetrating it still feels like your being punched when hit with a round. The bullet can even break bones through it! Yes, 2 or 3 firing at him would have ended it after getting disoriented but from the body blows and finally getting shot in the head/arms/legs.

This too. The guy would have been shaken up. He obviously expected some type of engagement with law enforcement, otherwise he wouldn't have protected his body as such. But I wonder if he would have expected two or three people to be armed inside the actual theater.

I'm betting it would have tossed him off balance a bit.

[Jermyn Davidson]

More bullets flying in a crowded and panicked theater would have resulted in more casualties.

[BroJoe]

More bullets flying in a crowded and panicked theater would have resulted in more casualties.

It's our mindset, bro.

If that stuff happened 100 years ago in that same area, I guarantee you almost every person in that theater would have been armed and every person would have taken that dude out.

The only reason people prey on people, is because they can.

[Hoovie]

Or it could have become an even bloodier scene with the chaos of rounds flying in all directions.

If more people were armed and decided in this situation to fire back, there would have been more death.

Very, very rare that this happens. But very, very common that the perp is stopped.

[Jermyn Davidson]

It's our mindset, bro.

If that stuff happened 100 years ago in that same area, I guarantee you almost every person in that theater would have been armed and every person would have taken that dude out.

The only reason people prey on people, is because they can.

Agreed.

Still, in those cramped condidtions with widespread panic, more bullets would have equaled more death.

Remember, there was smoke cannisters. I thought I read tear gas too, but I know there were smoke cannisters deployed.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Very, very rare that this happens. But very, very common that the perp is stopped.

Stopped maybe. All I'm saying is that there would have been more death in THIS situation had there been more bullets flying through the crowded, smoky, panicked, movie theater.

[houston]

Very, very rare that this happens. But very, very common that the perp is stopped.

You do know that movie theaters are dark, right?

[Hoovie]

Stopped maybe. All I'm saying is that there would have been more death in THIS situation had there been more bullets flying through the crowded, smoky, panicked, movie theater.

More death? I am not following you. I am saying, the evidence shows fewer bullets and less death when the perp is stopped.

[RandyWayne]

Any situation like this is going to be chaotic BUT if someone shoots at me I have the Constitutional right (or should anyways) to fire back.

[Hoovie]

You do know that movie theaters are dark, right?

Somewhat. This also puts the perp at a disadvantage.

He can't see the seven guns being pointed at him.
He is standing.
He is firing indiscriminately - so fire and sparks are lighting him up.

[RandyWayne]

Somewhat. This also puts the perp at a disadvantage.

He can't see the seven guns being pointed at him.
He is standing.
He is firing indiscriminately - so fire and sparks is lighting him up.

He was also wearing a gas mask, in this case anyways, which would have reduced his vision even more.

[Hoovie]

He was also wearing a gas mask, in this case anyways, which would have reduced his vision even more.

True.

I am not saying things MIGHT not go wrong. They can, but it's not a good reason to take away guns from those licensed to carry and shoot them in just such a case where lives are threatened.

[Jermyn Davidson]

True.

I am not saying things MIGHT not go wrong. They can, but it's not a good reason to take away guns from those licensed to carry and shoot them in just such a case where lives are threatened.

I never said it was. I just think that in this specific situation, more guns, more shooting, more bullets, more ricocheting, more opportunities for more casualties.

Unless I knew exactly where the gunfire was coming from, I wouldn't shoot.

If I knew exactly where the gunfire was coming from, I'd hesitate because of the high probability of hitting innocent people.

If I had a cleat shot at the perp, it would be one thing.

But a dark, smoky, crowded movie theater? People panicking, you aim in on the perp and some kid trips and bumps into you or worst, someone falls into your line of sight right before you pull the trigger.

There is just so much that can go wrong and although I'd want to kill the bad guy, I will never do anything to that I know could put innocent people in imminent danger of death.


A gun battle in a crowded, dark, smoky, movie theater with panicky people WOULD MOST DEFINITELY put more innocent people in imminent danger.

Gotta have a clear shot.
Gotta make sure I don't shoot the wrong person.
The ends doesn't always justify the means.
Can't kill civilians unless I have to.

As terrible as what happened in Colorado was, unless I had a clear shot, I'd have to hold my fire.

[Hoovie]

I never said it was. I just think that in this specific situation, more guns, more shooting, more bullets, more ricocheting, more opportunities for more casualties.

Unless I knew exactly where the gunfire was coming from, I wouldn't shoot.

If I knew exactly where the gunfire was coming from, I'd hesitate because of the high probability of hitting innocent people.

If I had a cleat shot at the perp, it would be one thing.

But a dark, smoky, crowded movie theater? People panicking, you aim in on the perp and some kid trips and bumps into you or worst, someone falls into your line of sight right before you pull the trigger.

There is just so much that can go wrong and although I'd want to kill the bad guy, I will never do anything to that I know could put innocent people in imminent danger of death.


A gun battle in a crowded, dark, smoky, movie theater with panicky people WOULD MOST DEFINITELY put more innocent people in imminent danger.

Gotta have a clear shot.
Gotta make sure I don't shoot the wrong person.
The ends doesn't always justify the means.
Can't kill civilians unless I have to.

As terrible as what happened in Colorado was, unless I had a clear shot, I'd have to hold my fire.

Totally agree. I think we could assume if ten were armed most may not have had a clear shot. But one? I am truly surprised that we did not end up with 75 or 100 people dead. I wonder why he stopped killing?

[canam]

Totally agree. I think we could assume if ten were armed most may not have had a clear shot. But one? I am truly surprised that we did not end up with 75 or 100 people dead. I wonder why he stopped killing?

ar 15 with 100 round canister jammed,not enough talent to unjam it thankfully, emptied his other weapons

[scotty]

I never said it was. I just think that in this specific situation, more guns, more shooting, more bullets, more ricocheting, more opportunities for more casualties.

Unless I knew exactly where the gunfire was coming from, I wouldn't shoot.

If I knew exactly where the gunfire was coming from, I'd hesitate because of the high probability of hitting innocent people.

If I had a cleat shot at the perp, it would be one thing.

But a dark, smoky, crowded movie theater? People panicking, you aim in on the perp and some kid trips and bumps into you or worst, someone falls into your line of sight right before you pull the trigger.

There is just so much that can go wrong and although I'd want to kill the bad guy, I will never do anything to that I know could put innocent people in imminent danger of death.


A gun battle in a crowded, dark, smoky, movie theater with panicky people WOULD MOST DEFINITELY put more innocent people in imminent danger.

Gotta have a clear shot.
Gotta make sure I don't shoot the wrong person.
The ends doesn't always justify the means.
Can't kill civilians unless I have to.

As terrible as what happened in Colorado was, unless I had a clear shot, I'd have to hold my fire.

I agree. Some in the theater next door were hit by rounds that went through the wall. How many concele carry people would have stopped to consider that before firing.

I am all for carrying, but the alarming thing I am seeing in the news, on videos, etc. is they most often fire off half a dozen rounds striking the perp only once or twice, if at all. What happened to those rounds? Do they consider where those rounds will go if they don't hit the perp? Does it even cross their minds? How sad would it be for the one who got behind the perp and made it to the exit door only to be shot in the back by one stray round from someone on the opposite side of the theater?

Anybody with no experience with a weapon what so ever can go take a little course and get their permit. And while they have to spend a little time on the range to get the permit, I would guess a very small percentage ever return to a range.

There comes some responsibility with drawing a weapon, and even greater responsibility in the decision to pull the trigger. A responsibility most never take a moment to consider. Especially in the heat of the moment.

I'm all for carrying, I do myself. But this is not a video game, you don't just get points taken off when you accidentally kill an innocent. No matter what your intentions were.

[scotty]

Totally agree. I think we could assume if ten were armed most may not have had a clear shot. But one? I am truly surprised that we did not end up with 75 or 100 people dead. I wonder why he stopped killing?

They found the AR 15 jammed. Easy 10 second fix for someone who knows the weapon. Fortunatly he did not.

Which is another reason why I have no problem with banning high capacity mags, they are useless in most cases. Most of the weapons they are manufactured for were not made to handle repetitive shooting at that rate of fire. Parts heat up too fast, metal expands, bolt stops working smoothly,etc. Then your jammed.

It may be hard to comprehend but the 5 to 10 seconds it takes to reload another mag is ample time for cool down.