Gun Control-Here we go again.
 

Re: Gun Control-Here we go again.
 

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

Re: Gun Control-Here we go again.
 

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.

Re: Gun Control-Here we go again.
 

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!"?

Re: Gun Control-Here we go again.
 

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!

Re: Gun Control-Here we go again.
 

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...

Re: Gun Control-Here we go again.
 

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.

Re: Gun Control-Here we go again.
 

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.

Re: Gun Control-Here we go again.
 

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.

Re: Gun Control-Here we go again.
 

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