Aurora: Where Tragedy Endangers Liberty
- Print print this page
- Discuss 47 comments, Blog about
Advertisement
Hard cases make bad law. And the worst law comes from the hardest tragedies.
Nor have there been many harder tragedies than the theater killings in Aurora, Colo. As such, there can be no worse law than any legislation coming from it.
Perhaps, when such monumental events occur, our legislatures and houses of Congress ought to recess - ostensibly out of respect for the victims, but in reality, out of respect for freedom.
Mark Twain said it best when he plagiarized the words of Judge Gideon Tucker, who observed, "No man's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session."
For instance, after the Twin Towers fell, our government quickly created the Department of Homeland Security. It did nothing that the government had not already done except create a secret trillion-dollar security apparatus so far-reaching that Richard Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover might call the ACLU to complain were they still alive to do so.
Tragedy endangers liberty because it excuses the inexcusable use of power to pacify fear.
There is nothing more disgusting than a politician grandstanding on the grave of a crime victim. Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City should be condemned for appearing on talk shows the Sunday following the Aurora killings and feathering his political nest with demands to take more state control of the personal arms that help guarantee liberty. But many people love it. They are only too happy to surrender their freedom for the perception of security
Whether the Batman shooter (I will not mention his name) was evil or crazy, there was very little government could do to prevent his act. If a Chechen terrorist could get bombs or guns into a Russian police state or a rebel could get a rocket-propelled grenade into a garrison state like Syria, then clearly no law in a free society like ours could eradicate those dedicated to evil.
Laws have little effect on those determined to break them. So laws to protect the innocent must be balanced by the burden they place upon their liberty.
Our British-based system of jurisprudence does not prevent crime. It punishes crime already done. This is the price we pay for liberty. A police state can take liberty upon suspicion of a future crime, but history tells us that such power once given to the state is abused more than used. It did not help the Syrians and cannot help us.
Enacting new laws to stop a crazy man from acting irrationally in a Carthage, N.C., nursing home or an Aurora, Colo., movie theater is simply a fraud on the public perfected by ceding to the state the right of law-abiding citizens to be free.
It is the same kind of placebo that stops bombs from being set off inside an airplane with 100 people but does nothing to stop a bomber from blowing up 200 people standing in line for a security check. It strips travelers naked with radiation to prevent old ladies with knitting needles from boarding aircraft, but does nothing to stop a military doctor from gunning down fellow soldiers.
In the case of Aurora and Carthage, an armed adult citizenry might have saved some lives, but perhaps not. The truth is that we are all warriors in the exercise of liberty. And, the exercise of liberty is not without risk. We can tell our children that the risk is minimal, but it clearly exists.
Reliance on a combination of brave first-responders and a well-armed civilian population is not foolproof. There are plenty of fools in Florida and elsewhere who take their right to bear arms as a license to become a vigilante. Errors will always occur, especially in a society dedicated to individual freedom. And those errors may result in death. But, as Patrick Henry reminded us, "Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?"
Creating new obstacles to freedom by limiting access to self-protection may seem to some the mark of a legislator executing his contract with his constituents. But it is really a politician contracting to execute our liberty in pursuit of a "nanny state."
Robert M. Levy is chairman of the Moore County Republican Party. Contact him at Law52@prodigy.net.
More like this story
Advertisement
Comments
sandhillsdogs 9 months, 3 weeks ago
Well said
OldPilot 9 months, 3 weeks ago
A person who is being treated for psychosis and/or schizophrenia buys an M-16, a shotgun and two high powered semi automatic pistols over the counter, plus a 100 round magazine for the M-16, 1000+ rounds of ammunition, tear gas grenade(s) and an armored vest, gas mask and tactical gear on line. This person then uses this collection to kill a bunch of innocent people. A normal, reasonable, logical response would be to ask what can be done to prevent this from happening again, and again, and again. Unfortunately Mr. Levy opines that even raising the question is "...creating new obstacles to freedom by limiting access to self-protection..." If there were an award for twisted logic Levy would take first prize.
skylinefirepest 9 months, 3 weeks ago
OldPilot...an M16?? Where have you heard that? What part of the media stated an M16 was used?? And how did the government notify the gun dealer that Holmes was being treated for a mental medical disorder? First, his medical records are sealed BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT. Then the weapon is question is an AR15, not an M16, a major difference. Then you wonder about Levy's twisted logic...while we are told that the Democrats sneaked in a "mag size" attachment to a bill being voted on, most certainly sneaky and a definite obstacle to self defense as most any gun owner will tell you. If I were to fault any little bit of Levy's comments it would be the part about "There are plenty of fools in Florida and elsewhere who take their right to bear arms as a license to become a vigilante." I'd have to argue that one with him as the facts simply don't support him on that one.
OldPilot 9 months, 3 weeks ago
I guess there really is no cure for stupid or insanity.
OldPilot 9 months, 3 weeks ago
OOPS, sorry. Was it an AR-15? Who knows and who cares given that the M-16 was a development of the AR-15. Many carried both, both had many of the same problems. That said how about some response to the concept that the best response to yet again another mass shooting is to maintain the fiction that any attempt to create legislation to prevent such acts is nothing more than "...new obstacles to freedom by limiting access to self protection..." Really, who rights are we protecting? Mass killers? Way to go NRA!
mcg2010 9 months, 3 weeks ago
Look, I don't think this is the time to have a rational national discussion about gun control. As Mr. Levy did say hard cases, make bad law. However, I think it's a great time to have discussion about ammunition control. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Fine whatever, I also know that a bullet killed them. And there is no reason why someone crazy or sane, should be able to purchase the amount of ammunition that the CO killer obtained.
Additionally, you will NEVER be able to convince me that more guns are the answer. Am I really to believe that if someone or someones in that dark, crowded, chaotic theatre had been armed and would have opened fire on the initial shooter that it would have some how resulted in LESS deaths? Really? Unless they are a skilled marksman, I hardly doubt it. I don't have a problem with the 2nd amendment, and while I don't feel as though I need a gun, I certainly respect anyone and everyone who choses to do so. But we are foolish to think that more guns will mean less death. That math just doesn't add up.
JimRussell44 9 months, 3 weeks ago
M-16 or AR-15? Crap or poop? Semantics. The shootee is just as shot, your shoe is just as soiled. Let's stop the BS and have an honest discussion on the subject. If the NRA wants to prevent people like me, who have little knowledge of guns, from pushing for measures that might keep another "joker" from killing mass quantities of people by simply flexing their finger then the NRA needs to take the lead in making suggestions and proposals that will help. Simply hiding behind the 2nd amendment and referring to "slippery slopes" won't accomplish anything constructive. So tell us, gun owners, what do you and your most powerful lobby have to offer? What suggestions do you have to help prevent a reoccurance?
I know that gun owners like to say that guns don't kill people, people kill people. I agree, but having a gun makes it a lot more convenient. Using your own argument then, we can conclude that having more guns won't make people safer, having more folks not killing people will make us safer.
skylinefirepest 9 months, 3 weeks ago
Boy don't we have a bunch of uneducated anti gun nuts running around looking for solutions...well, guys, I'm all ears. What are your solutions, guys?? His med records are sealed by government orders. He buys his guns apparently over a two month period and buys what the uninformed would call a lot of ammunition...but not to a regular shooter. So let's hear it! What would have stopped him??? Guns save lives and gun control doesn't work. Let's see, we can ban a certain kind of weapon...done that, didn't work! Well, we can ban ammo...tried in parts...didn't work! Why don't we ban cars that will do over twenty miles an hour, ban mountain climbing and rapids running, ban alcohol and drugs, ban knives, baseball bats, and kitchen implements??? Ought to bring the death toll right down to about what?? Oh, I forgot, let's do away with the armed forces and the police and industrial accidents and that should do it, right?? You all are focusing on guns and that's already been tried...not the answer, guys!!! Give me some workable solutions here without stepping on our rights and freedoms, how 'bout it??? In other words, JimRussell, I don't think we can do much of anything to prevent another tragedy like this. Don't like that answer?....tell me what you would do and leave the gun bans, bullet bans, restrictions and such "already tried, didn't work" bs out of it. Metal detectors at the door? TSA checking your pockets and shoes?? Road blocks and stopping random people on the streets? Yes, I am being very sarcastic here, because all I'm hearing is "well, if he didn't have so and so he wouldn't have been able to kill a bunch of people" and that's crazy talk! You can mix a little fuel oil and ammonium nitrate fertilizer and kill a whole theater full of people. But don't talk down to me because I try to throw a little gun education your way. There's slews of surveys, studies, polls, you name it, that show that guns are used on an 80 to 1 ratio to prevent crime. These figures come from both pro and anti gun control people and from the last few segments of government, only one of which could have been call even semi pro-gun. Check out the FBI uniform crime statistics. Do your homework before telling me that I'm the one being unreasonable, how about it???
SH59 9 months, 3 weeks ago
I absolutely agree with Mr. Levey on this one. There's no law that could have prevented these mass killings and people are too quick to react in an irrational way. Ever since TV came into our living rooms our society has continued to become less and less connected to each other as individuals and we create silent bubbles around ourselves engrossed in our texting, computers and video games; neighbors don't know neighbors anymore. We can't keep making laws to do our job for us. It used to be we knew who moved in down the street and people reached out to each other in social ways which actually made people behave better. It's our human connection that controls society, not laws so if there is anyone to blame it is we who aren't willing to befriend the odd loner among us leaving them to live in their own lonely fantasy world.
RmeMP 9 months, 3 weeks ago
Alright everyone, the first step to "fixing" the problem, which led to the Aurora shooting, is so obvious, that it would pass with bipartisan AND NRA support - PASS LEGISLATION MAKING PERSONS PSYCHOLOGICAL RECORDS PART OF THE REQUIRED MANDATORY BACKGROUND CHECK, WHICH IS DONE AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE OF A FIREARM!
If a person is undergoing treatment for certain psych conditions they get "flagged in the system" - like the no fly list, only a no firearm list; then, if the person gets psychologically cleared in the future, his/her shrink can have that person removed from said list.
teufelhunden 9 months, 3 weeks ago
SH59 & mcg2010-you both made some very thoughful points.
The_AnonymusProfit 9 months, 3 weeks ago
This is just obsurd. Gun control does nothing to prevent crime. It increases crime. Every single mass killing in America with the exception of 1 occured in an area where there were no guns allowed.
sandhillsdogs 9 months, 3 weeks ago
As of this morning there are 7 people in Moore County jail with charges possession of a firearm by a felon .. criminals don't really care about the LAW!
The_AnonymusProfit 9 months, 3 weeks ago
Not really sure how you can keep a segment of the population from owning firearms if they have paid their debt to society. All rights should be returned.
skylinefirepest 9 months, 3 weeks ago
Guys, I'm serious...I'm not trying to crack on you...tell us what solutions there can be without treading on the rights and freedoms of gun owners. You don't restrict the rights of MILLIONS because of the travesty of a few...remember one hundred million gun owners DIDN'T kill someone yesterday. But you guys who think that gun ownership is negotiable will find that we don't believe in compromise anymore since we can't trust those who call for it. The anti's always win and the pro's always lose. And it has nothing to do with the NRA. They are one hundred percent pro gun and choose their political candidates totally on that basis...and in doing so back some really horrendous choices at times. Somebody this past week said that the NRA is simply a voice for the gun factories and that's simply not true...the NRA wants you to be able to buy, as a law abiding citizen, whatever it is you want. And isn't that the American way?? We don't restrict to NEED in this country, it's what you WANT!! Otherwise why did I buy a 340 fastback Cuda when a slant six Dart would have sufficed and gotten better milage?? A lot of comments are being made about "assault rifles" by those who know practically nothing about firearms. Well, there are millions of semi-auto rifles in civilian hands and they are used for sporting as well as defense purposes. Come up with some suggestions to stop the crazies and you'll find that the NRA and gun owners are more than willing to listen.
JimRussell44 9 months, 3 weeks ago
I'll conclude from your comments, skylinefirepest, that you don't see any way to help prevent massacres like the one recently in Colorado. It is your opinion that ANYTHING done along those lines would infringe on your rights as a gun owner. Is that correct? If that is the case, then you would oppose the suggestion made by RmeMP, a suggestion that would probably help but would infringe on the patients rights to own whatever the hell he wants (I think you called this "the American way"). Here is where I am coming from: If people using guns to kill people are putting legitimate gun owners in a bad light, it is the gun owners who should be looking for ways to correct this problem. It is YOUR peer group that is causing the carnage. Come up with solutions. Be like RmeMP and look for answers instead of criticising. Here is a possible starting point: movies, video games and TV violence.
OldSpook 9 months, 3 weeks ago
If I may add to RmeMP's suggestion - All persons who purchase a firearm shall also attend a one semester weapon training course at an approved facility. Anyone who fails to prove their proficiency with their intended firearm, and all safety protocals, shall be allowed to repeat the class once. Failure to complete the training (pass the course) shall require the student to surrender the firearm for resale at an approved vendor with proceeds returned to the student.
Yes, I am trained in small arms. Yes, I am an expert shot. No, I do not carry...yet.
SH59 9 months, 3 weeks ago
I like that OldSpook.
The_AnonymusProfit 9 months, 3 weeks ago
No oldspook, weapons training class does not stop a massacer, and you are limiting the rights of citizens to own firearms.
The_AnonymusProfit 9 months, 3 weeks ago
Let me reiterate, that sounded like i was against weapon training, Weapon training helps responsible citizens learn to operate weapons responsibly.
The one question that no liberal will ever answer is this. If we ban guns, does this mean criminals who want guns will not be able to get them? Marijuana is illegal, but you can get it right off the street in downtown southern pines.
So liberals what is your answer, will gun control laws stop criminals from getting guns? I dont think you will be able to answer, prove me wrong.
skylinefirepest 9 months, 3 weeks ago
JimRussell...while not adamantly opposed to psych exams prior to owning a gun, once again, why should I??? I'm law abiding. Show me how to stop the crazies! Maybe OPENING their med records if there is a problem in the licensing process? And who would pay for the exam...I know, the law abiding citizen applying to the government to pay the tax to buy a firearm! And mandatory training...would that exempt all with prior military service, since we all had it in the service?? And who would pay for it? The "state" charges something like ninety bucks for a ccp and that's after you have paid someone another seventy five to way over a hundred for the class that is required. Now you can get a driver's license for eight bucks, good for eight or so years and there is NO med exam, a semblance of free training in high school, and the right to drive a four thousand pound vehicle down the road at sixty miles an hour while talking on a cell phone, texting, drinking, eating, taking drugs, talking to your girl friend, or whatever. Got a fire call, will answer the rest later.
WFB 9 months, 3 weeks ago
"Guns save lives and gun control doesn't work."
Hey, skylinepest. Guns don't save lives. People save lives.
Edit: Also, guns don't decrease crime rates. People decrease crime rates.
cantstandya 9 months, 3 weeks ago
Skyline, Heard alot of sirens around Cypress Church road, was that your call?
cantstandya 9 months, 3 weeks ago
There is a program called Gang Wars in which Current TV covers and interviews these gang members, after watching it and seeing the vast numbers of these kids, I mean a 15 year old with an assault rifle, well that is enough to make anyone feel the need to be armed, it is right here in this state, having been in the military and participating in actions that required the use of weapons I have a respect for them, many of these who have them do not realize the finality of firing on a human, it is not fair to advocate for gun control that takes that right away from responsible citizans, by doing so we are just giving into the criminal element that has caused the problem, we will end up unarmed while they still carry.
The_AnonymusProfit 9 months, 3 weeks ago
I see my question goes unanswered by the left,
WFB 9 months, 3 weeks ago
The 1996 study (John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime) people keep citing as evidence that gun ownership rates and crime rates are inversely related has been proven to be lacking in methodology. So the conclusions made by the study are highly questionable. Here, read this paper from 2009 (like I'm sure most of you read More Guns, Less Crime) that takes Lott's research to task and also examines data not available to Lott at the time of his research: http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1065&context=john_donohue
Until this has been addressed, anyone making the claim that More Guns = Less Crime is doing so on the basis of ideology rather than actual evidence.
cantstandya 9 months, 3 weeks ago
@WFB, Took the time to research the site you suggested, my take was at the end Lott and Mustard confirmed that citizan with guns do deter crime, or am I missing out on something.
WFB 9 months, 3 weeks ago
"I see my question goes unanswered by the left"
Anonymus_profit, I can't speak for others who lean left, but I don't think anyone can deny that there is a black market for everything.
And to clarify my stance on guns, I'm somewhat atypical as a self-identified leftist in that I don't want to ban guns. I attribute this position to my being raised by hunters and respectful gun enthusiasts (not gun nuts), some of whom have had to use deadly force in the past to protect their family and business.
JimRussell44 9 months, 3 weeks ago
Profit: I'm in the center, neither left or right. Can I answer your stupid question? Most of us are not advocating banning guns. If there were no guns allowed in the United States, there are some people who would still have them. No law will end the problem. What I am asking you is what solutions do you offer to help? Stop being so negative and try to work with those who are trying to seek solutions.
WFB 9 months, 3 weeks ago
cantstandya,
"As expected, the incarceration rate is seen to statistically significantly reduce crime, but this finding is far stronger in the AD specification than in the MM model. this raises the question: if the MM model cannot correctly predict the impact of incarceration on crime, why should we expect it to reliably tell us the impact of RTC laws on crime?"
And of course there is this surprise, which I'm sure might offend a couple of people here, haha:
"In sum, while the best evidence to date suggests that rtc laws at the very least increase aggravated assault, this comment illustrates that it is not an easy task to tease out the net effects of rtc laws on crime via panel data analyses."
Basically, the conclusion is: the determinants of crime rates are complex and a lot more research and a lot more data are needed to establish, one way or the other, RTC laws' effects on crime rates.
And personally I take issue with people citing Lott's research as definitive when it most certainly is not.
WFB 9 months, 3 weeks ago
oh, cantstandya, I'm quoting the Donohue paper I linked (More Guns, Less Crime Fails Again). Which takes to task Mustard & Lott. Apologies if I didn't make that clear.
SH59 9 months, 3 weeks ago
The_AnonymusProfit, this isn't about right or left but about understanding what is going on. I am definitely a dem but as I said above I'm in total agreement with this article. Let's not make this about us or them but have a community conversation.
pinewoodnc 9 months, 3 weeks ago
Old Pilot, PLEASE be sure that you state CORRECTLY the RIGHT kind of guns or the know-it-alls that spend their lives on these blogs will be sure to CORRECT you and indicate how ignorant you are. It must be so nice to be so blessed to know everything about everything. Unfortunately, I used the term "automatic" instead of "semi-automatic" and the know-it-alls made sure to let me know that my opinion is of no consequence since I was so uninformed. I have never in my life seen such nit picking and rudeness. Many on here are such hypocrites that they think they have a right to their opinion, but if someone doesn't agree with them, then that person has NO right to their opinions. Total hypocrites.
The_AnonymusProfit 9 months, 3 weeks ago
I have given solutions in the past.
The first part of the solution is to take a step back and think logically, this entails understanding that as posted above there is a black market for everything, This also entails understanding that the person running in to the bank with an uzi is not worried one bit that this is a gun free area, in fact it is a comfort to this person to know that he will be the only person with a gun.
The second involves a better understanding of how certain types of guns such as tech - 9s, uzi,s full automated ak-47's etc arrive in our country. We spend far to much money and far to much man power putting people in jail for possessing a gun Ie felon in possession then we do securing the points of entry where these guns come in.
The third involves a complete overhaul of all current gun control laws to a codified system that makes a distinct difference between a semi automatic weapon such as an AR-15 and a fully automated weapon such as a M1. Having said that I dont not think it should be out of the realm of possibilities for the average citizen to obtain a fully automated weapon. I would want to see a well regulated and documented process of licensing for these weapons.
The fourth involves removing the notion that we do not or should not own weapons.
The fifth step in this process would be a quicker destruction time for guns that have been seized by agencies such as the FBI and ATF.
These are just some generals, however the best approach is always going to be a common sense approach, stop all the rhetoric and tell the truth, gun control does not prevent gun crime. Gun free zones do not prevent gun crime.
@JimRussell my question was neither illogical or stupid.
Bentpan 9 months, 3 weeks ago
It's simple in EVERY STATE where " RIGHT TO CARRY" laws have been passed violent crime has dropped not by a little but substantualy, anyone that disputes that is a liar plan and simple. It is statistical fact period. One licenced carry citizen in the Aurora theater could have saved many lives.
RmeMP 9 months, 3 weeks ago
It is clear to me, and quite scary, how many people don't know about firearms - and have no problem speaking to others about the subject, thereby spreading the fallacies. There is a HUGE difference between an automatic firearm and a semi automatic firearm; if you don't know the difference STOP making it sound like you do.
An M1 (Garand) is NOT an automatic firearm, it is SEMIAUTOMATIC. Auto means you hold the trigger down and rounds fire continuously, semiautomatic means each time you pull the trigger ONE round is fired.
Please go comment on the geese story - you don't belong here.
OldPilot 9 months, 3 weeks ago
Got to love it when gun nuts and the NRA mouthbreathers hyperventilate over the identification of a weapon as an AR-15 vs an M-16 or the use of the term semi-automatic vs automatic while arguing that the best argument against firearm purchase/ammo purchase regulation to reduce the liklihood of future such events as Aurora is "protection of our second amendment rights". Who's rights are being protected? The nutcases who buy the weapons, ammo and tactical gear and kill a bunch of innocent civilians? Great. How about protecting the rights of innocents who would rather not be killed in yet another senseless mass shooting, thank you very much? The suggestion that a bunch of armed people shooting it out in a dark theatre after a tear gas grenade has been thrown against a guy wearing a mask, black tactical gear and an armored vest firing a shotgun and two high powered pistols (after his mail order 100 round magazine/AR-15/M-16 jammed, which is to be expected for both in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to maintain either plus that type of magazine is a disaster) is so unbelievably stupid and naive as to be laughable. Just how many more innocent civilians would you like to have been killed in the crossfire? This type of assinine behavior has been going on with nauseating regularity since Charles Whitman Jr. climbed into a tower at at the University of Texas and killed 14 people. It continues through Columbine, the attempted Gabrielle Giffords assination and Aurora with so many others not mentioned. Some track record!
mcg2010 9 months, 3 weeks ago
While I don't claim to speak for all "liberals" (which I think is a childish and polarizing label to tag on to a conversation that needs to happen between all Americans to hopefully reduce the number of events like this.) is questioning the right for anyone to carry a gun. What I question is the ease in which we can purchase the ammunition to load those weapons. I have family members who are hunters. But I can't imagine a situation where they would need to purchase 6,000 rounds of ammunition in 6 weeks.
I don't care if you want a gun. I complete understand anyone rational behind wanting a firearm to protect their life, family and property. That's honestly what our country was founded on. I don't have an issue with that. I have a problem with crazy people being able to purchase these weapons and stock pile ammunition like they are ready to over throw a local government. Yes, the black market will go on. Just as it does for illegal substances does now, and even as it did during prohibition. But there need to additional checks and balances in the distribution of guns and weapons to make sure that senseless events like this are reduced.
The_AnonymusProfit 9 months, 3 weeks ago
RmeMP are you speaking to me? that was supposed to say M16 not an M1 but if you want to be an ass about it I can be one back.
RmeMP 9 months, 3 weeks ago
Not being an ass AP, simply pointing out facts - how am I supposed to know what you were "supposed" to write? I simply commenting on what you DID write. If you think me pointing out facts are making you look like an ass, then that's your bad - not mine.
BTW, I wasn't directing my comment at just you, others have commented and either didn't know what they were talking about, or mistyped. I was simply stating that there is a big difference in the two.
JimRussell44 9 months, 3 weeks ago
Profit, thank you for your comments. I'm glad to see you are for tight regulations of automatic and semi-automatic weapons and that you would favor an overhaul of current gun laws. You also offer a good suggestion for the rapid destruction of all firearms confiscated by law enforcement. I am troubled by your suggestion that too much time and money is spent on removing firearms from felons. Perhaps you have a hidden agenda on that one.
OldSpook 9 months, 3 weeks ago
Tap, Sorry about the delayed response, but perhaps my point is not clear. Weapons’ training is not intended to stop wholesale slaughter by a mad man. Nothing can stop a crazy person from destroying themselves and/or others. The intent of training is to ensure the persons who own the weapons (having undergone the background check) are accomplished shooters who understand their responsibility for the safe handling of their weapon. IMHO there are far too many uneducated, untrained and undisciplined weapon owners on the streets. If these laws infringe on the rights of people who are not capable of shooting a 240 out of 300, then so be it. The safety of many outweighs the "rights" of a few. But this is where government gun control ends. While not a perfect answer it is a start.
The_AnonymusProfit 9 months, 3 weeks ago
@jimrussle my point about the felon thing is i hear slot of arrezts for this but not near as many for the person that sold them the gun.
@oldspook point taken
@rmemp i think it was pretty obvious that that was a typo
SH59 9 months, 3 weeks ago
Nobody really seems to get it, this isn't about gun design or skill; it's about fear. I own a gun not because I enjoy shooting but because one day someone else with a gun may threaten my home. Anyone is a fool to think we shouldn't have guns because even if it was illegal for law abiding citizens to own a gun the nut cases and criminals will still be able to find them and we are left defenseless. There's no way around changing gun laws except possibly restricting sales of the most powerful and destructive ones to people who have been trained and qualified in their use. There will always be the crazy or mentally ill person who will do harm but it's not like we have movie theater shootings happening on any regular basis. If that ever happened then we might have to look at tighter restrictions but to jump all over our gun laws because of the most recent horror doesn't make sense.
mcg2010 9 months, 3 weeks ago
@SH59 I haven't seen one comment on this discussion where anyone has called for an all out restiction of firearms. I have actually been very pleased with the overall tone and demeanor of this conversation, as it has seemed to stayed above the fray and both sides have made valid points. Again, I don't claim to speak for everyone, but I don't think anyone would disagree with your rational behind owning and wanting to own a gun.
You're right, crazy people will still be crazy and anyone that wants to do heinous shootings like this will find a way to do it. However, I would argue that "anyone is a fool" to think that every 12-18 months it's okay to have a shooting like this, as long is it's not "regularly," without having a sensible discussion about who has access to firearms, ammunition and their motives to have those weapons.
If your argument is going to be "well mass shootings like this don't 'regularly', so why bother talking about it." Then that seems like a whole other national conversation we should have.
skylinefirepest 9 months, 2 weeks ago
OldPilot and Pinewood...the difference is that when you repeat the mistake then it starts to be taken as the truth and referenced by other unknowing people. The difference between auto and semi-auto is like the difference between a federal crime and a parking ticket! When you say that we are nit picking you are wrong. Also there have been several comments about the amount of ammo that Holmes bought. What's the problem? To anybody who does any shooting six thousand rounds is not a stockpile...it's a working amount! OldPilot...one last time, if you don't believe it then that's your right... I would rather have a chance to survive a shootout...meaning that anyone, someone, a person, etc. is SHOOTING BACK AT THE CRIMINAL and possibly stopping him, than being in a totally unimpeded shooting gallery where he can simply shoot until he runs out of bullets or targets. It is asinine to think that someone shooting back would simply kill MORE people. Makes sense to me and apparently to every cop that I've talked with about this shooting!! Unimpeded means Holmes could take his time, shoot until he got tired of shooting...guys, that's a one hundred percent chance that you can be shot! Not good odds by my standards. Look at the sheer number of victims this turkey shot...a single person shooting back at him might have stopped the carnage at a much lower number EVEN GIVEN THAT SOMEBODY MIGHT...MIGHT, have been caught unintentionally. The reason we're jumping on you guys is that you are blaming the tool instead of the person...and I'm not sure that anything would have stopped Holmes beforehand!! Do you really, really want the axholes of the Obama administration counting the number of bullets you buy? Please! Given the track record of the people in this administration I think of this as a loaded with criminals administration and I don't want them to have any access to anything that I do. I don't really believe that you all do either, truth be known!! Cantstandya...the sirens out Cypress Church were for a possible structure fire...unfortunately, I ended up on a tanker working at the fire at the Moore County landfill and didn't get released until sometime after three this morning. Two of us drove our tanker and hauled forty two thousand gallons of water!
OldPilot 9 months, 2 weeks ago
Skylinefirepest: I'm sure that the innocent victims of numerous mass gun killings over the years will be deeply comforted by you concern for facts: killed by an AR-15, not an M-16, or vice versa; killed an automatic weapon, not a semi-automatic weapon, or vice versa; killed by a shotgun, not a bolt action rifle, or vice versa. As a previous writer said "...that crap versus poop...". Dead is dead. The particular type of firearm used to kill innocent civilians is hardly the issue. Your argument that the solution to Aurora would have been a bunch of people blazing away, in a dark theater full of people, trying to hit a guy dressed in black and body armor, proves there really is no hope for logic, reason and proportion when faced by stupidity verging on insanity.
The_AnonymusProfit 9 months, 2 weeks ago
OldSpook the point is that these killings, again all but 1 have occurred in areas that prohibit guns, now I am not saying that on this particular occasion that a person with another gun would have been much help, then again, if someone had shot at the ceiling it may have made the shooter pause, even a few seconds might have saved lives, but that is beside the point. The point of this whole article is that when things like this happen, which they do to often, we jump on band wagons of gun control, and we welcome laws that limit our liberties, after things have cooled down we second guess ourselves but by then it is to late and we have yet again given away another liberty to the government who is happy to take it.
We should never pass laws after things like this, because we are irrational due to the inherent emotion of such events. That is the point of the article.