Gun culture thrives in U.S. despite cinema massacre

The only good thing about this horrid business is that this creep's assault rife jammed. Otherwise it would have been worse. Let target shoots and hunter have their guns, but ban assault weapons. They are worthless as sporting arms. The US already bans fully automatic weapons (machine guns) and can do the same with assault guns.

Another thing, this guy ordered 6000 rounds of ammo and no red flags were raised. You have to wonder why.

The only people who saw John Holmes was a nut case were firing range owners who refused him membership.

“Guns don’t kill people, people do" is a popular, typical, and probably one of the most senseless statements that some American people love to repeat. It makes absolutely no sense. I propose that a more fitting statement is, "Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people". though, I am sure many will just simply quote the 2nd Amendment as a "right to keep and bear arms". Gun control will ruffle feathers on both sides of the fence. It would be a rare occurrence for one side to capitulate -specially a gun enthusiast. But, I admit that the main reason I chose to live, work, and stay in Japan is the safety, which includes never fearing that I would end up as a victim of a random shooting.

"Guns don't kill people, people do" is something I have heard time and again here in Kansas. It's simply a matter of attributing causes of events to things that either serve or don't serve our ego. As a teacher, I hear things regarding test results. "I passed the test because I'm smart" versus "I failed the test because it was too hard." See the difference? For the good things, we believe it is because of us; for the bad things, it is never because of us. That's called the fundamental attribution error (popular in individualistic societies like the US). In this vein then, the old "guns don't kill people, people do" is a way to place blame on a supposedly "sick" individual, thus implying I would never do that because I'm sane and therefore superior. The psychology is very simple, but then again, ego is a very powerful thing here.

@Kabukilover

The only people who saw John Holmes was a nut case were firing range owners who refused him membership.

Did they raise any red flags? Should've.

@A+b/a=a/b≡?

the main reason I chose to live, work, and stay in Japan is the safety, which includes never fearing that I would end up as a victim of a random shooting.

Nah, just random stabbings and random hit-n-runs, but you're right, no shootings.

“If I were there, I would have killed him,”

And how many times has this happened in the last decades, these shootings, as far as i know, has always been stopped by the police or the shooter killing himself.

"Guns don't die, people do."

Nah, just random stabbings and random hit-n-runs, but you're right, no shootings.

Which are still a drop in the bucket in comparison to violent crime in America.

A bullet is a hell of a lot harder to outrun than a dude with a knife.

Some people somewhere are always going to "lose it" but if they don't have powerful killing tools like assault rifles & handguns then a hell of a lot less people are going to get killed by these "losers".

"Buying weapons “is fairly easy, if you are not a criminal,..."

What if you weren't a criminal but wanted to commit mass murder? Gee, that sounds like James Holmes.

“If I had been there, I would have stopped some damage,”

No, you would have created more, and probably killed a few innocents along the way. Then, if someone saw you holding a gun and shooting, and they too had a gun, they might draw on you and shoot you -- how do they know you're not the bad guy? Then someone else with a gun could pull it out and shoot them, and someone else them, etc.

If I had been there, I would have stopped some damage

Yeah its easy to talk tough when there are no bullets zipping around you. I laugh when l read comments like this, l could just see these types of people cowering on the floor as the bullets fly and they grab their gun and start blindly firing in the direction of the shooter. And how many innocents would get hurt because of this type of action? Unbelievable!!!!

And how many times has this happened in the last decades, these shootings, as far as i know, has always been stopped by the police or the shooter killing himself.

Actually, this happened just a few months ago. A man with a gun went to a church and shot a parishoner. The gunman himself was then shot by another person in the parish.

Oh, yeah. That incident happened in a town called Aurora, Colorado.

At the end of the day it is the US that needs to address their issue about guns in society for themselves. NZ actually has incredibly lax gun laws and we have a huge amount of guns out there(although pistols require enormous efforts to obtain: special licence, affordability, police vetting etc) yet our gun deaths are largely caused by the state (i.e Police shootings). As I understand it (I haven't checked) in Canada guns are fairly available as well and the deaths by guns So, it cannot be 'just guns' that has led to the huge amount of shootings in the US - doubtless there are many other factors as well.

if you check the wiki stats http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate you'll see that the US features at 10th

Also, with the number of guns in circulation - how will this now be curtailed? That is quite a thorny policy question. Whatever the solution is - it is an issue that the US must solve for themselves

... death by guns in Canada are comparatively low it should have read....

LIttleton, Colorado - 1999 - Columbine High School Two senior students, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, embarked on a shooting spree in which a total of 12 students and 1 teacher were murdered. They also injured 21 other students directly, with three further people being injured while attempting to escape the school.

Littleton, Colorado - 2010 - One male and one female were shot at about 3:30 p.m. outside Deer Creek Middle School Tuesday just miles from Columbine High School

Burlington, Colorado - 2011 -12 year old boy kill husband, wife, and critically wounds 2 small children

Aurora, Colorado - 2012 - Batman movie opening - Twelve people, including a 6-year-old girl, were killed and 58 wounded.

Colorado's state motto: Nil sine Numine ( nothing without providence)

@ Dennis Baur

And how many times has this happened in the last decades, these shootings, as far as i know, has always been stopped by the police or the shooter killing himself.

Actually, quite a lot more than you think. It's just that the media usually choose stories that are more sensationalist, and elicit strong emotions. Quite often these would be massacres are stopped by armed citizens.

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-270374.html

As long as Americans don't give up guns, it seems that they would have to get along with lovable guns ever, even if they already realized that horrible shooting incidents happen again and you might be next. This is a guns country's destiny.

nec123aJul. 25, 2012 - 09:49AM JST At the end of the day it is the US that needs to address their issue about guns in society for themselves.

How are you going to do that? In the U.S., the existence of the black market and its sales of weapons make it possible for convicted felons to access guns as well. Licensing, registration, and eventually confiscation of the guns of law-abiding citizens will not affect the criminals who will not license, register or turn in their guns. Also, gun control has not worked in England or Australia. The citizens were disarmed and now only the criminals have guns. In towns where citizens are permitted to carry concealed weapons, crime goes down.

A lot of misinformation on this topic.

For one, more people are killed by knives in the United States than are killed with assault rifles. Chasing after bans on assault rifles is only good for politicians getting votes.

Secondly, most gun murders take place in the inner city, between gang bangers. I doubt they care much whether or not their gun was obtained legally or not. Again, making it illegal to own handguns wouldn't make much of a dent in those kinds of crimes.

Thirdly, places like Mexico, Russia and Brazil have strict gun laws, yet have a lot higher murder rate than the United States.

Fourthly, the majority of Americans (according to recent media polls) feel that the statement "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is generally correct. Which means no politician is going after gun control if he or she wants to stay elected.

But then again, as a previous poster alluded to, this is a very emotional issue, and most people are arguing from emotion rather than logic. When you are arguing with emotion, it's easy to cherry pick your data to support your argument.

As a side note, one of the reason this dude's gun jammed (thankfully) was that he bought his ammunition from China (or at least ammunition made in China), where it was much cheaper, and of much less quality.

So in this case we can be thankful for crappy Chinese manufacturing.

@sfjp330,

Also, gun control has not worked in England or Australia. The citizens were disarmed and now only the criminals have guns. In towns where citizens are permitted to carry concealed weapons, crime goes down.

Would you mind providing the source of your statistical guess work?

Also, gun control has not worked in England or Australia

Come sfjp330, gun control in UK and Australia clearly has worked. Let me prove it: Deaths by firearms per 100k population: -USA over 10 -Australia 3 -UK 0.46

Im intrigued to know how you think gun control in UK/Aussie doesnt work. It clearly does. Yankees need to wake up and realise what the rest of the world has - Guns kill people. Reduce the guns, reduce the death.

Some interesting posts on here, and many noteworthy for both sides. I do think that they should have stricter gun purchasing laws, whereby it requires a psychological test, longer waiting period, and require that the purchaser have a guarantee of character reference from at least two people. This might at least identify some potential killers and may even make people think twice about doing something. I also don't understand how a person can buy a semi-automatic rifle, what the heck will you use it for other than in the mob.

A+b/a=a/b≡?

Also, gun control has not worked in England or Australia. The citizens were disarmed and now only the criminals have guns.

Huh, citizens disarmed in Australia... Really!!!

I think you will find that far from being disarmed they merely banned certain types of weapons (semi automatics and pistols). You can still own guns in Australia quite legally all you need to do is show you have a need for a weapon and go through stringent licensing and testing to ensure you can safely own a weapon. Maybe thats something the US could look at too.

＞the majority of Americans (according to recent media polls) feel that the statement "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is generally correct.

So something needs to be done about the people. Posters on JT like to deride the japanese education system for producing 'automatons'. Maybe America could copy the bit that doesn't produce free-thinking, mouth-breathing, gun-totin' morons.

This is a normal scene in the U.S. heartland where it takes more than a few mass shootings to drive a wedge between patriotic Americans and their right to bear arms, as enshrined in the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

So being patriotic means you wanna carry a gun?

For one, more people are killed by knives in the United States than are killed with assault rifles. Chasing after bans on assault rifles is only good for politicians getting votes.

One, it won't get votes and two, yeah of course because all Americans need assault rifles.

Secondly, most gun murders take place in the inner city, between gang bangers. I doubt they care much whether or not their gun was obtained legally or not. Again, making it illegal to own handguns wouldn't make much of a dent in those kinds of crimes.

Actually it could. In Japan it is illegal to own ammo and hold a handgun. If that was the same in the US gun violence even amoung gang-bangers would be down. Even the Yaks rarely use guns in Japan. Too risky. Of course, the US will never go down that path. Pity.

Thirdly, places like Mexico, Russia and Brazil have strict gun laws, yet have a lot higher murder rate than the United States.

They may have strict gun laws, but they are not strictly enforced.

Fourthly, the majority of Americans (according to recent media polls) feel that the statement "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is generally correct.

Sadly misguided.

gainjinfo:

For one, more people are killed by knives in the United States than are killed with assault rifles. Chasing after bans on assault rifles is only good for politicians getting votes.

Your point? I'm pretty sure it's not exactly easy walking around with assault rifles and killing people, but they're the perfect weapons for mass shooters.

Thirdly, places like Mexico, Russia and Brazil have strict gun laws, yet have a lot higher murder rate than the United States.

That's because the governments in those countries are corrupt and incompetent as hell.

The US will never restrict the use of guns for countless reasons.

1) You only have to restrict something when there is lack of education and good sense. And it is not the case yet for the US.

2) It is considered more civilized the country with citizens that can live with guns than a society that restrict it. No one never knows what could be of Japan, for example, if you make it free. People should start shooting each other in every corner or a new world war can begin.

3) I won't want to be in the US if I want to use a gun to make a crime. Because there, I will expect greater resistence from everyone.

4) Restricting it only takes out the rights of honest citizens. Criminals will use illegal guns.

5) A country will never be sovereign, will never have supreme authority, if its citizens don't know how to use a gun. If the US restricts it, another country will not. And this country will be sovereign. And imagine if this country is a evil one? It already happened in the past (ex.: German and Japan in WWII).

6) If you think on restriction. Why don't restrict the use of knifes, cars, planes? All these things can kill. Even going out of home put your life at risk. So, why to restrict the use of guns?

7) It is very ingenuous of a country to restrict the use of a thing that can either protect or give the opportunity to fight for your rights in case of necessity. This could make this country an easy target for domination.

8) There is lot of important researches involved with guns and with the military. You could never develop a country without this researches.

There are lots of reasons. Much more than what was listed.

gaijinfo: "For one, more people are killed by knives in the United States than are killed with assault rifles. Chasing after bans on assault rifles is only good for politicians getting votes."

Umm... no, it wouldn't get them votes at all -- it would ensure they are voted out. It would take a lot of cahones to stand up to the NRA and try to get even assault rifles banned, and with the presidential election looking like it might actually be close no one is going to try and challenge them or the Second Amendment. As for knives being used as weapons, their primary function is for use in the kitchen; guns serve no purpose but to kill.

It's amazing how slippery the logic of the anti-gun crowd. Facts are meaningless. Guns are bad, simple as that. Freedom mean nothing. If the majority of people want to carry guns, then the majority of people are simply wrong, and they need a strong, coercive government who knows what's best for them.

I'm just glad that despite the repeated cries from the left how people need to be 're-educated" when it comes to guns, most politicians have pretty much given up this fight.

If you don't like guns, don't buy one. But here's some more facts for you to dismiss: (all from 2005)

Death due to guns in U.S.A. in 2005: 30,694

Suicides by guns in U.S.A. in 2005 16,000

Justifiable homicides: 600

Murders by firearms: 12,252

% of Murders by felons/gang members/ career criminals: 80%

Number of traffic fatalities: 33,808

No. 1 Murdering Country: Turkey (gun per capita rank 54)

No. 2 Murdering country: Belarus ( gun per capital rank 79)

No. 3 Murdering country: Lithuania ( gun per capita rank 160)

No. 4 Murdering country: Albania ( gun per capital rank 70)

No. 5 Murdering country: Estonia ( gun per capita rank 65)

Yea, it's pretty obvious that if you take away guns, murders will simply stop happening.

@Fernando: While it was difficult for me to understand what in the world you were trying to type/state... (I had to read your post 3 times to make some sense of it)... I think #6 is the funniest and probably the most senseless thing I have read in this forum.

6) If you think on restriction. Why don't restrict the use of knifes, cars, planes?....

Freedom mean nothing.

It seems the freedom to sit in a cinema, go shopping, go to college, walk down the street, without being in danger of having your head blown off is a freedom that means nothing.

@gaijinfo, all you do is cherry-pick and call them "facts". You're comparing advanced nations to developing nations, apples to oranges. Why don't you compare developed nations to developed nations.

Hello A+b/a=a/b.

Well, difficult to understand number #6? I help you...

Just think in Japan. Every day you read the news you see people getting murdered by.... knifes. Does Japan need to restrict the use of knifes?

My opinion (that can be wrong) is that you can use the same logic to answer for guns.

FernandoUchiyama

Just think in Japan. Every day you read the news you see people getting murdered by.... knifes. Does Japan need to restrict the use of knifes?

Bluntly yes they do. Maybe they could be like other nations and ban the sale of knives to minors, ban certain types of knives and have a no carry law meaning if you are caught in public with a knife it is deemed a criminal offense. But to rebuff your ridiculous statement. Yes knives and cars and even oxygen kills people but take a knife wielding nutter. At best they can kill or maim a couple of people at best before they are disarmed. Now give that same person a rifle with a 30 round magazine and a couple of spare mags and compare the tolls. Yes knives are dangerous but they are a lot less dangerous than a gun.

gaijinfo: My guess is that you consider the US more 'civilized' and 'developed' than the third-world countries you mention, but you won't mention that. 2020hindsight summed it up pretty well, though. In other words, the US in the only supposedly 'developed' nation that has devolved into madness.

Joel E MatthewsJul. 25, 2012 - 08:45AM JST

Guns don't kill people, people do" is something I have heard time and again here in Kansas. It's simply a matter of attributing causes of events to things that either serve or don't serve our ego. As a teacher, I hear things regarding test results. "I passed the test because I'm smart" versus "I failed the test because it was too hard." See the difference? For the good things, we believe it is because of us; for the bad things, it is never because of us. That's called the fundamental attribution error (popular in individualistic societies like the US). In this vein then, the old "guns don't kill people, people do" is a way to place blame on a supposedly "sick" individual, thus implying I would never do that because I'm sane and therefore superior. The psychology is very simple, but then again, ego is a very powerful thing here.

@Joel, thank you for your post. Totally agreed. It is my pleasure to read very logical comment like yours.

I am in Colorado and have witnessed two massacres in the past 13 years; Columbine HS shooting in Littleton and this shooting in Aurora in addition to the recent Waldo Canyon Wildfire three weeks ago... These incidents are very serious and personal for all of us who live here. We are still in shock, disbelief and sorrow. This alleged gunman killed and seriously injured many innocent and good Americans (one is actually from my city) for no reasons, but they could not kill or shatter a spirit of us. We stand tall against Automatic Assualt Weapons and violence and we WILL overcome! Our commitment is just beginning...........just like we did for MADD movement.

globalwatcher: "We stand tall against Automatic Assualt Weapons and violence and we WILL overcome! Our commitment is just beginning...........just like we did for MADD movement."

I stand behind you on this. Let me know if I can help in some way.

In other words, the US in the only supposedly 'developed' nation that has devolved into madness.

@smith, it is very sad to tell you America is supposed to be a land of freedom, equality and justice, but it is crumbling to a country of no peace and social dispaire in madness and fear.Very disturbing.

Guns do KILL, if they did not kill, then what would American, Japanese etc..police carry?? Sticks?? No, they carry at least one gun that we can see, 1 or 2 that are strapped to the cops lower legs etc..just in case they RUN out of Bullets that DO KILL, so for all them fools on drugs, which would be nice GIVE a national DRUG test to any fool that wants to buy a weapon, see how many druggies back in Colorado, etc..would fail and would not be able to buy their favorite guns, because guns are killers, fools who are drunk, smoking crack, well, I guess you all get the picture.

Thirdly, places like Mexico, Russia and Brazil have strict gun laws, yet have a lot higher murder rate than the United States.

@ gaijinfo: You forgot to add this little fact, that I posted at another post:

In 2010, the EU sent over 1 million hand guns to be sold in the US. That's right, the EU whose member countries have some of the strictest gun control measures has no problem producing them and sending them over.

Austria, where the "Glock" gun is made (kits can be sold to the US and some are made in the USA, but it is an Austrian gun), exported over 431,000 guns ot the US in 2010. This was one of the guns used by Holmes. Not only did he use them, but so did Jared Lee Loughner, the one who shot Congresswoman Giffords and killed others as well as the VA Tech shooter. Not to be outdone, Germany exports guns to the US, (230,000 in 2010) were used in mass shootings that made the news.

Germany 0.466

@ 2020hindsights:

See my previous post. Germany may have a lower rate, but they are the second biggest exporter of handguns to the USA (230,000 in 2010). Guns which were used in some of the mass murder cases like the VA Tech shooter who used a Walther P22 or the Northern Ill shooter in 2008 who used a Sig Sauer P232 which are both German products.

So they export their guns to the USA, but like to claim that they have low rates, but somehow they never state that.

globalwatcher: "We stand tall against Automatic Assualt Weapons and violence and we WILL overcome! Our commitment is just beginning...........just like we did for MADD movement."

I stand behind you on this. Let me know if I can help in some way.

@smith, thanks. I will keep it mind. I wonder what kind of role do you feel comfortable with. Please let me know.

Been reading a bit about this lately. The person who makes the most sense is Michael Moore, and I really dislike the guy. But he makes the point that yes there are too many guns, but on the other hand like Nec123 said, some other countries have guns but have nowhere near the level of gun homicides.

So, this is a thing that Americans are just going to have to ask themselves. Why do they shoot each other so much?

If you're American, study your history including the Civil War, and the statistics of gun deaths and compare it with other countries, and there's no escaping the fact that Americans just shoot people more that anyone else. It's bizarre.

Readers, the subject is U.S. gun culture. Comparisons with other countries are not relevant to this particular story. Please stay on topic.

We should remember that the 2nd amendment was drafted before you could buy assault weapons and 6,000 rounds off the internet.

Guns do KILL, if they did not kill, then what would American, Japanese etc..police carry??

.................................

Its complete sheer lunatic madness when people make statements like these. If that's the logic you want to use then, poison kills people, knives kill people, bombs kill people, cars kill people, air planes kill people, chainsaws kill people and therefore all these tools should be brought to court forced to sit in front of a judge and receive a penalty..

Look, these objects don' have a heart or a brain they are inorganic none living objects ad therefore DO NOT kill people. It only takes another individual to take away the life of another.

The gun is the great equalizer of man where a 5 ft 100 lb female can be on equal footing with a 200 + pound male. It is a guard against tyrannical Govts, since all despotic Govts seize fire arms from the public.

It should also be noted that anti-gun laws also embolden criminals by making it harder for law abiding good citizens to obtaining a fire arms. This leads to less worry from a petty criminal knowing that the odds of breaking into an un-armed private home is most likely.

Alphaape

Its simple really if the US didnt have weak gun laws then there would be no sales therefore these companies wouldnt have a market. Its that simple really. So the fault doesnt lay with the manufacturer filling a market but with the weak laws that allow the demand for the product.

It is a guard against tyrannical Govts, since all despotic Govts seize fire arms from the public.

Lol how are you expect to fight against the government who has nuclear weapons, fighter jets, tanks and sophisticated SWAT teams with handguns?

It is remarkable how saturation coverage of crimes cause some posters to have the most hysterical, distorted views of the U.S.. The reality is that the violent crime rate in the U.S. has been steadily falling to levels not seen since the 1950's. Most citizens simply do not live their lives in fear of being victims of crime. Violent crime involving innocent victims not connected to the drug trade remains relatively rare. That is one reason why the majority is not enthusiastic for major changes in gun laws.

anti-gun laws also embolden criminals by making it harder for law abiding good citizens to obtaining a fire arms. This leads to less worry from a petty criminal knowing that the odds of breaking into an un-armed private home is most likely.

So all the extra murders by firearm, suicides by firearm and accidental deaths by firearm are justified by the hope that they will stop some petty punk making off with the family TV and video set? That kind of thinking is sheer lunatic madness. Very twisted priorities.

It's interesting to note that according to Nationmaster, the US is #4 in the list of perception of safety from burglary (ie they think their property is safe) yet #7 in the list of property crime victims - way higher than other countries with no guns. Looks like the 'guns keep burglars away' theory doesn't hold much water.

How to stop the gun madness. ALL and I mean ALL governments of the world would have to declare that ALL guns are the sole property of the state and the military and police forces with-in (I'm sure there are a ton of different constitutional violations there). Then to close the black market all governments will have to take complete control of all gun and ammunition manufactures (again has to be some violations in there). Then the government would have to have it's police and or military start a house (building) by house search for all existing guns and seize them (again lots of constitutional violations), but this will lead to a large (enormous even) amount of military, police and civillians being killed especially in the "third world" countries (more constitutional and human rights violations). Of course all this would pretty much bankrupt the governments of the world with expense.

I do hope that all of you realize that I am being facetious here, the above could and would never happen or be practical.

The better solution would be to address why people feel the need to take each others life. A good place to start would be with the illegal drug trade followed by (my opinion) the human slave trading, and definitely addressing domestic violence and the continued break-down of the family. Several of you pointed out the vast difference in gun deaths between the U.S. and other developed nations, yes they have strong gun laws but they also have very strong social services to deal with the issues I just mentioned.

Thomas AndersonJul. 25, 2012 - 03:12PM JST

It is a guard against tyrannical Govts, since all despotic Govts seize fire arms from the public.

Lol how are you expect to fight against the government who has nuclear weapons, fighter jets, tanks and sophisticated

SWAT teams with handguns?

It is often said that life and art imitate each other I would suggest viewing the first ever PG-13 film "Red Dawn" I think the Hollywood writers got a lot correct in that one and the lesser armed people were typically successful against the superior armed invaders.

When Jesus handed the first Europeans to land (occupy) America their M4 automatic carbines he said go forth shoot the squirrels that abide here, and those thee perceive to be a threat, should tho see a "hoody" gun them down for they are the devils minions. Turn the other cheek only when hot brass doth pain. Yay tho nutters's would use these blessed weapons wail not for I have given thee a Lobby group and thy children smaller versions of these self protection weapons and all will rejoice....except those families who lost someone in yet another senseless act.

"It is remarkable how saturation coverage of crimes cause some posters to have the most hysterical, distorted views of the U.S.. The reality is that the violent crime rate in the U.S. has been steadily falling to levels not seen since the 1950's. Most citizens simply do not live their lives in fear"

"In the U.S. for 2010, there were 31,513 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 19,308; Homicide 11,015; Accident 600.

Yeah, hysterical. Amazing to think that 12 people die every week just from accidentally shooting themselves or someone else. Those figures don't bother you? Add to those numbers the injuries and what do you get?

Think I'll take my chances with earthquakes and radiation.

A great point in your last paragraph, Frank.

Could one argue that the US gun culture is a symptom of an overemphasis on curing social ills downstream (through public and private prisons, public and private police forces and other aspects of the multibillion dollar domestic security apparatus)?

Surely investment in the health and proper education of all its children would create an America which is more competitive in the global marketplace, help to prevent upstream the poverty and disconnect which causes criminality, and reduce the fears of that proportion of the population that currently feels the need to protect their loved ones.

Piecemeal, reactive legislation alone will be insufficient to wean the US off its gun culture. Politicians must unite and show leadership in shaping a better future for America's children.

So all the extra murders by firearm, suicides by firearm and accidental deaths by firearm are justified by the hope that they will stop some petty punk making off with the family TV and video set? That kind of thinking is sheer lunatic madness. Very twisted priorities.

You do know that suicides can hardly ever be stopped? And how about accidental firearm deaths? let me guess, accidentally pulling the trigger when one does not mean to? most likely your grasping at hysterical straws here. This is your your lunacy and lack of grasp with reality begins to real its ugly head.

Thousands of crimes are prevented each year by gun carrying citizens. Although I would like to point out that in third world countries, homes are robbed on the hourly basis by a Govt that restricts gun ownership. Fact is, a lot of crimes are prevented i the U.S simply because of these citizens that practice their second amendment rights.

You rely too much of statistics, often when people use the "according to x" argument are usually people that are easily hoodwinked into bad data or analysis or too heavily reliant on statistics. As Mark Twain accurately said "There are 3 kinds of lies, lies, damned lies and then there are statistics". You can make up a statistic on just about anything and most likely it will still be wrong.

"Red Dawn" I think the Hollywood writers got a lot correct in that one and the lesser armed people were typically successful against the superior armed invaders.

Ironically enough, Red Dawn took place in Colorado. And I think it had more to do with the will to fight the big government rather than a lesser armed people rising up. Interesting, Hollywood tried to make a pun on the old bumper sticker "Not until they pry my gun from my cold dead hands" when they showed a Russian troop doing exactly that from a dead man, or how they went into the sporting goods store and began filing through the gun registration certificates so that they could find persons who had guns. I actually enjoyed that movie and as I stated had more to do with being able to fight back with what little you have against a well armed foe.

And how about accidental firearm deaths? let me guess, accidentally pulling the trigger when one does not mean to? most likely your grasping at hysterical straws here. This is your your lunacy and lack of grasp with reality begins to real its ugly head.

Many accidental deaths are caused by the gun owners' not storing gun and ammo safely and children finding unlocked loaded guns and accidentally shooting themselves. In some countries (which I cannot mention or my post will be pulled) to own a gun requires an inspection of where the gun and where the ammo will be stored to ensure it is safe.

I don't really think of it as the US having a gun culture, I think of it as guns being an integral part of US culture. Guns are partly how the US defines, and portrays itself. Movies, TV, history from the US have guns, and the use of guns in the differentiation between good and evil as a central theme. The US conducts itself politically down the barrel of a gun quite regularly, and has for a long time. Japan known that all too well. It's a part of the country and how it positions itself globally, so the cultural aspect extends from the man on the street who believes guns make him safer and more powerful, right through to the National sense of self, security and power.

One of the reasons I really doubt the US will be able to have a mature conversation about this is because the navel gazing required means that it brings into question some very fundamental aspects of what it means to be America, and American. These are things much easier seen from outside, but as Joel E Matthews pointed out right at the top of this thread, there is a lot of ego at play in this debate. I doubt it will really happen, and I think these kinds of mass killings are an unavoidable symptom of the national illness.

Tamarama Very good post. I agree about the American culture. The prospect of any kind of rational discussion in the country is nearly impossible. Something has happened to the U.S. over the last 100 years. 1912 there were 48 states and only about 300+/- murders per year for all 48, now there are that many per day (maybe more) for all 50 (OK and only 100 million people, but allowing for a 300% increase that would only amount to 900+/- murders a year). Records would appear to indicate that people back then tried to blend in and assimilate with each other, today the U.S. has become enclaves of different cultures, from cities being split to whole states being different from one another. And this carries over to Washington D.C. as even politicians supposedly from the same party can't agree with each other much less the other party(s). It is a society breaking down upon itself and that will lead to more and more violence.

Then there are the things I posted above about improving social services, but hard to do in this economy.

America's gun culture can be changed, but must be done so with an all-party, broad-based coalition representing all the constituencies within the argument, and in a respectful and holistic manner.

Fundamental to it will be admitting there is a crisis and examining the root causes of gun crime: what drives disenfranchised young men into gangs, and impoverished individuals to crime. A social contract will be required, promising children free access to healthcare, and world class education to high school. In other words, citizens must be afforded dignity and self respect, and not have to think they can only earn it through carrying a gun. Only then will they feel ownership in their society.

Of course, private possession of other than licensed shotguns and hunting rifles would be illegal, with stiff penalties for all (Ireland has a mandatory 5 years minimum sentence for possession of guns or ammunition, for example), regardless of background or social status. The licensing regime for shotguns and rifles could be based on international best practice.

The peace dividend will be that the US becomes a more competitive nation in the global economy, attracting more inward investment to a less violent country that's more at ease with itself, and enjoying greater popularity as a tourist destination.

Former gun owners will feel more secure in their homes, survivalists will hopefully feel less threatened, and the Rapture demographic will have to admit that the end is maybe not so nigh as they thought, and certainly not for them to expedite.

Perhaps a tall order, but America's children deserve no less.

Fundamental to it will be admitting there is a crisis and examining the root causes of gun crime: what drives disenfranchised young men into gangs, and impoverished individuals to crime. A social contract will be required, promising children free access to healthcare, and world class education to high school. In other words, citizens must be afforded dignity and self respect, and not have to think they can only earn it through carrying a gun. Only then will they feel ownership in their society.

@ SenseNotSoCommon: Name me a country that has all of that and has no crime. The USA has had many "boom" years where jobs were available and people were able to make ends meet. But we still had a criminal element. There are some people out there, that no matter what you "give" them will always want more and will do anything to get it if it is not theirs. US citizens are afforded dignity and self respect, and not by carrying a gun. But it is up to the individual to want to make a difference. Taking away a law abiding citizens right to have a gun just so some other person can "feel good about themself" is not going to deter crime.

Movies, TV, history from the US have guns, and the use of guns in the differentiation between good and evil as a central theme.

@ Tamarama: Name for me some of these movies that have guns as the main theme. TV Westerns, sure they had them but the land was lawless in some areas so they had to use them. But if you did a bit of research you would find that even in lawless areas, the "bad buys" had to be on the run from a legal posse to bring them to justice. To say that the American exploration of the west was just a bunch of gun slinging shootist is not true. If that is the case, then I guess watching those old samurai movies on Japan TV tells me that Japan was jsut ruled by a few people, and the rest of the peasants had to die because some samurai got into a beef with another over some trival matter, and others had to die for his "honor." Is that any violent than the USA and its western history.

History is history and we should have learned something from it. That is why there are no more swords in use in Japan and no more guns in most of the rest of the world. It is 2012 after all, why is America living in the past?

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

– Thomas Jefferson

A social contract will be required, promising children free access to healthcare, and world class education to high school. In other words, citizens must be afforded dignity and self respect, and not have to think they can only earn it through carrying a gun. Only then will they feel ownership in their society.

@ SenseNotSoCommon: In case you hadn't heard, the movie shooter had a college degree and was in graduate school studying neuroscience. The VA Tech shooter was in school at VA Tech, as well as the person who was shooting at Northern Ill Univ back in 2008. These people did have "world class education" as you said, and according to your logic should have had "dignity and self respect" but they just snapped. And all of the social programs and other touchy feely stuff you want to happen will not change the fact that human nature makes some of us go off the deep edge. Whether they use guns, drive a car into a crowd, or some other method, these peopl probably would have killed. Nothing we can do about that,

A recent headline in the New York Post blared "Bloody Weekend" referring to the 16 murders and over 50 shootings for the week, here in NYC which has gun-loathing Mayor Mike Bloomberg's strict local gun restrictions. Something unimaginable in Tokyo. Its the crazed people who kill other people and the rules and norms and laws that apply to the more civil of us folks, matter for naught to the wild ones and lunatics.

I have using guns since my childhood. I was trained and introduced to guns by my father. I am also attended Hunter safety courses and was required to graduate just to be able to wield and purchase a gun from my home state. As far a I am concerned guns for recreational purposes are fine. Assault rifles and machine guns really have no feasible use in the home. But where do you draw the line? There used to be a ban on high capacity magazines and assault weapons but it expired in 2004 and was not renewed. I feel very personal about this issue as I personally seriously believe in the right to bear arms, as I know that I will be safe with them and have been trained with them. Its the other people with guns that I am worried about. Whats the answer? I don't know. You will never be able to outlaw guns in the USA. Too many will oppose this, including me. You may get a ban on assault weapons again but this will only limit the accessibility not eliminate the threat. This has always been and issue and probably always will be because you will never get a consensus also not to mention that all Americans value the freedoms that they have and a very reluctant to let the go.

People don't kill people, cars do. Let's ban cars!

Grenades, m16s and ak47s don't kill people. I think every American should have the right to have grenades and the best military weaponry he can afford to protect his family. Let's face it, the bad guys will always be able to get hold of grenades. and any kind of weapon, so how can decent law-abiding citizens cope when the bad guys have a firepower advantage. Semi-automatics won't help me against grenades and machine-guns.

Come to think of it, with all the crime in my city lately, I think I'll order one of them bazookas on the net!

So, does the above make sense to anyone?

@yasukuni how about a minigun? :p

WolfpackJul. 26, 2012 - 08:58AM JST

People don't kill people, cars do. Let's ban cars!

And it is called ACCIDENTS.. Killing someone by the Automatic Assualt Weapons is INTENTIONAL without anger management skills.

How about this Americans - you are right. Guns don't kill people, people do. In a perfect world, or in the good old days in America, everyone loved their neighbor, nobody killed everyone, and everyone love, respected and cherished their guns. So it was safe.

(though I'd suggest, there was never a time like that)

But now, it's obvious that society has gone down the drain because of communism, socialism, evolution, the Democrats, bad movies, taking prayer out of schools, women's lib and all the rest of it.......so now, maybe it's time to think about whether everyone should have access to guns.

If even after this tragedy, people resist ANY talk about restricting the purchase of different kinds of weapons and amounts of ammunition, then it's incredible.

I feel very personal about this issue as I personally seriously believe in the right to bear arms, as I know that I will be safe with them and have been trained with them.

That right to bear arms. Is that a God given right? How come I don't have that same right here in Japan? Is it because they don't believe in God?

Its the other people with guns that I am worried about. Whats the answer? I don't know. You will never be able to outlaw guns in the USA. Too many will oppose this, including me.

Maybe you should consider why you oppose it. What do you really need a gun for if not to kill?

You may get a ban on assault weapons again but this will only limit the accessibility not eliminate the threat.

Handguns are the biggest killers - outlaw them, like almost every other country, and you will be mostly there. Of course nobody needs an assault rifle.

Wolfpack

People don't kill people, cars do. Let's ban cars!

Cars are at least highly regulated and to get a license to drive one is way more difficult in the US than getting a gun.

Since this most recent shooting I have heard more people in the US screaming about their right to own a gun than people mourning the senseless deaths in Colorado.

The ones who get horribly upset and paranoid that someone is going to come busting into their home to take their guns away are usually the last people I want walking the streets armed. There is a good deal of cross over between rabid gun obsession and ultra right wing politics and ultra fundamentalist Christianity in the US. Not exactly who I want being heavily armed considering their judgment on other matters.

Alphaape, "Touchy feely stuff"?

Ensuring that American kids get a decent education like their peers in the rest of the developed world (and most developing countries for that matter) is "touchy feel stuff."

Really?

What's so hard to understand? If you have a gun you're more likely to kill yourself and kill others before you "defend" yourself with it.

When you look at someone like James Holmes, obviously mentally disturbed (quite probably an undiagnosed paranoid schizophrenic, from what I can see - he probably needs treatment rather than punishment), it is clearly wrong that guns are so easily available.

Other countries with tighter gun laws have far fewer massacres, far fewer accidental gun deaths etc. Really, how hard is it for people to understand such a simple statistical link?

If I was American, I'd be ashamed that this keeps happening and nothing is done to protect people - all to protect the sanctity of a constitutional provision the meaning of which is totally outdated and has been completely distorted in its interpretation by gun nuts.

Crazy.

FnC

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. – Thomas Jefferson

Infowars, so what?? Just because a very smart president said something 200 years ago doesn't make it holy writ for all eternity. Jefferson also happened to own slaves (including a female slave he slept with, who bore him children), but I would say most people today would reject his opinions regarding slavery. If you want to argue in favor of guns, do it from your own 2012 perspective, not with the words of a man who died in 1826.

Can I fly into your nearest airport, rent a pick up truck, and bolt a loaded M60 on the back?

Of course, I'll have the safety catch on, so you have nothing to worry about when I drive around your neighborhood.

Perfectly reasonable, isn't it?

Frightened Americans will purchase more guns to "protect" themselves. It's a never-ending cycle. More and more guns. This is America, a country littered with gun-loving yahoos...

Yes guns do not kill people only people?? How about saying, look hand grenades may help you against some fool who wants to kill you at your local movie theater but let us go with the NRA logic, screw the hand guns, hand grenades, and just go for a nice BAZOOKA, hell, if you got a nice portable BAZOOKA, approved by the NRA etc.., well even if you are not a good shooter, you be rootin toontin the best shot in your part of town, and just blow the hell out of them plum loco dudes trying to mess with your good time at your local Century Theater, right??

There was a liberal economist who examined the proposition about the relation between gun ownership and crime. After he collected the data, he realized that an inverse relationship existed. Now, the not so liberal economist, John Lock, wrote a book about that titled More Guns, Less Crime.

Locations of successful mass shootings have one thing in common: They are designated "Gun Free Zones" such as Fort Hood (Maj. Hassan), Columbine HS, the theater in Aurora (not the town), Virginia Tech, and others. In Florida, there was an attempted robbery of a computer store by a pair of criminals carrying a gun and a club. A 71 year old patron pulled out his gun and stopped the robbers who were last seen falling over themselves on the way out the front door. The store was not a "gun free zone" and that scene is available on YouTube.

There was a liberal economist who examined the proposition about the relation between gun ownership and crime. After he collected the data, he realized that an inverse relationship existed. Now, the not so liberal economist, John Lock, wrote a book about that titled More Guns, Less Crime.

I searched the book and it says the author is John Lott, not John Lock. Not sure about the liberal thing, it says that he is politically conservative and was likely one before.

The "liberals" are coming for you Amerika... but we're unarmed

@Jerome from Utah, is there no limit to the perfidy of US gun culture's defenders?

Quote from Conservapedia (which boasts "We do not allow liberal bias to deceive and distort here"):

"Lott gained press scorn after using a pseudonym[9] to praise his book and teaching. Pretending to be a former student of Lott's, Lott called himself "the best professor I ever had". He also earned criticism from conservative Michelle Malkin, who refused to engage in a radio debate with Lott."

Check out a couple of the links on Lott on this conservative website: http://www.conservapedia.com/John_R._Lott

Jerome, the conservatives are disowning this guy. I feel very sorry for those who subscribe to US gun culture. The majority of your countrymen don't support you. The New Testament doesn't support you. And your academics can't support themselves.

Ever considered paint balling?

Ensuring that American kids get a decent education like their peers in the rest of the developed world (and most developing countries for that matter) is "touchy feel stuff."

@ SenseNotSoCommon: Yes 'Really." I am not opposed to having better high schools for American kids, but that is not going to stop someone from going over the edge and killing someone either with a gun or any other method. As I mentioned, this guy had a high school degree, and undergrad in Neuroscience and was working on a Masters in that field. So he was not some guy who needed to feel like he was disadvantaged because he didn't have a fair chance at life because of his lack of education. He had an education, and doesn't get any sympathy from me for him doing this crime.

Guns do not belong in the hands of ordinary citizens today. They got there due to an embarrassing amendment to the constitution, and mind you, that was a long time ago. The states distrusted a federal government and needed a provision to be able to arm the people to defend themselves against central government abuse. So the purpose of the right to keep arms was for the states to have a way to check a central/federal government, that right being the right of the individual. Remember this all was negotiated at the time of the creation of the Bill of Rights, at the time a nation was created. Interpreting the 2nd amendment in the 21st century as a free card for virtually everyone to own a gun is a gross misinterpretation and simply wrong.

@Alphaape, <>.

Pull yourself together, please, and have the decency to pay attention:

"Of course, private possession of other than licensed shotguns and hunting rifles would be illegal, with stiff penalties for all."

The AR-15 and Glocks would not be available in the society proposed. Holme's educational attainment is not only an irrelevance, but a smokescreen. US gun culture is morally bankrupt, attacks humanity's basic needs, and runs counter to the world's major belief systems.

Even President Obama is wading in and saying that assault rifles belong in the hands of soldiers, not citizens.

The argument of "If someone in the cinema had a gun they could've taken him down" is null in the argument due to the gunman using a smoke or tear explosive in the cinema. If someone could've used their own weapon to take down the gunman, THEY could've injured or killed people too.

Holme's educational attainment is not only an irrelevance, but a smokescreen. US gun culture is morally bankrupt, attacks humanity's basic needs, and runs counter to the world's major belief systems.

@ SenseNotSoCommon: You need to pay attention. I only brought up the issue of his education because you first posted that the root cause (one of them) for gun violence in America is because you believe people are not getting a quality education. Well the fact that this guy was in a Masters program in Neuroscience prety much blows your idea out of the water.

Owning a gun does not go against humanity's basic needs nor runs counter to the world's major belief systems. I come from the Judeo-Christian background, and one of the 10 Commandments reads "Thou Shalt Not Kill" (which in Hebrew comes out to you shouldn't murder). It didn't say which method to use to kill, but that you shouldn't take a life just out of some sort of evil doing or killing just to kill. So if you use a gun, knife, car, strangle, etc, it is still bad, but show me one majore religon that says guns should be banned. Even Islam, gives its believers the rights to "kill the infedels" so once again, you are just spouting some "touchy feely" mumbo-jumbo. If you don't want to own a gun, you have that right in the USA. No one id going to make you go out and buy one. But it is people like you who just because you don't like them, want to keep everyone from having one.

The states distrusted a federal government and needed a provision to be able to arm the people to defend themselves against central government abuse. So the purpose of the right to keep arms was for the states to have a way to check a central/federal government, that right being the right of the individual.

@ presto345: So you are saying that now everyone in the USA trusts the Federal Governmen, and should just lay down their right to have a weapon because you think we all trust the government.

We do have methods to disagree with the Federal Government. The Constitution can't be changed unless 3/4 of the states agree (you are probably too young to remember the failure of the ERA back in the 70.s), and when they do work the court system does set boundaried between state and federal governments. So if with all of the rampant spending and unaccountability from both parties you believe that the American people are more trusting of the government now than back then, you are mistaken.

Owning a gun does not go against humanity's basic needs nor runs counter to the world's major belief systems.

So how do you explain "Turn the other cheek."? What are you going to do with a gun except shoot someone?

@alphaape

So you are saying that now everyone in the USA trusts the Federal Governmen, and should just lay down their right to have a weapon because you think we all trust the government.

You find it necessary to interpret history your own way and twist someone's words, put words in my mouth. Fine, my friend, you have been building a reputation for yourself. Enjoy it. And, uhh, as an afterthought, not trying to twist your assertion, you then do think you need to have a weapon because you, or the others you are mentioning, do not trust the government? Get some fresh air.

@2020, I didn't say anything about god you did. And as for my rights as an American I think I have earned them by wearing its uniform and fighting for it. If you don't like our American laws because they are different than yours that's your problem or if you want your laws in your country to change that is also your prerogative. I was just expressing my opinion, not impressing it. I stated why I was using guns in the first place for recreation and later for military use. Recreational shooting is fun ask anyone who does. As far as handguns go I don't really care. Like I said before its just my opinion.

What are you going to do with a gun except shoot someone?

How about hunting for food to feed your family, and yes even in this day and age there are people who need to do so in the U.S. and in other countries as well.

How about for recreation, which I participate, for some of us it is a pleasurable challenge to place a projectile into a specific point 100 meters away, with the variables of ammunition manufactures and weather no two target shoots are ever the same. And shooting is even in the Olympics.

In the popular TV show "Mythbusters" they did a show where they interviewed the cast. The female star Kari Byron said that when she joined the show she was a complete California girl through and through including being anti-gun. When she learned that she would have to use firearms she was horrified and almost quit. But they other cast worked with her and now she says that the safe and proper use of a gun is one of the funniest things in the world and that more people should be open to it. She did stress SAFE and PROPER.

assault rife jammed

It's not an assault rifle, in order to be an assault rifle it needs to be fully automatic or in other words a machine gun.

They are worthless as sporting arms.

How are AR-15's worthless as sporting arms? What makes them worthless as sporting arms?

The US already bans fully automatic weapons (machine guns)

This is false, fully automatics are legal in the US, the only thing that was banned was the further production of fully automatics for the civilian market in 1986. Any fully automatic made in 1986 or prior in the US is legal.

Another thing, this guy ordered 6000 rounds of ammo and no red flags were raised. You have to wonder why.

Because the vast majority of gun owners buy in such quantities. Most people go through hundreds of rounds each time they go to the shooting ranges, so buying in bulk prevents repeated trips to the store but most importantly it drives the cost down per bullet. A lot of stores sell boxes of 50 rounds for 20 bucks, most people will go through such a quantity in about 15 minutes or less at a gun range. So in order to make target shooting affordable people will buy in such quantities. I know some people that have bought anywhere between 12,000-24,000 rounds at once.

A bullet is a hell of a lot harder to outrun than a dude with a knife.

No its not, if the guy throws the knife at you I doubt you will be able to outrun the knife. It's like saying you can out run a baseball.

As for knives being used as weapons, their primary function is for use in the kitchen

But that begs the question though smith, do you need metal knives? Plastic knives do quite well at cutting food.

It would take a lot of cahones to stand up to the NRA and try to get even assault rifles banned,

The last legally created machine gun for the civilian market that killed anyone in the US was in 1940. Legally produced assault rifles for the civilian market haven't killed a single person, outside of law enforcement use of killing a suspect, in the US considering the first assault rifle was the STG 44. Now military style semi automatic rifles have but keep in mind that such rifles make up less than 1% of gun homicides in the US. So what are you really achieving in reducing gun violence when they make up less than 1% of gun crime in the US?

If you wish to avoid the mass killers, stay away from "gun free" areas. The mass killers are smart enough to do their shooting where law abiding gun owners are not permitted to bring their protections. Smart business people here in Ohio have "legal gun owner" friendly signs on their doors welcoming licensed gun owners to be armed on their premises, idiots have "no guns allowed" signs which will only be honored by law abiding citizens, not the crazy shooters. (all states require licenses for concealed weapons carried in public, the description of gun purchasing in the story is for someone to have a gun at their home or carried publicly, not concealed)

Yeah, hysterical. Amazing to think that 12 people die every week just from accidentally shooting themselves or someone else. Those figures don't bother you? Add to those numbers the injuries and what do you get?

No because more people die each week by accidently falling to their death in the US.

The argument of "If someone in the cinema had a gun they could've taken him down" is null in the argument due to the gunman using a smoke or tear explosive in the cinema. If someone could've used their own weapon to take down the gunman, THEY could've injured or killed people too.

By that argument than the police response would be useless. They couldn't do anything in such an environment.

So what are you really achieving in reducing gun violence when they make up less than 1% of gun crime in the US?

Saving the lives of the 1% killed with those weapons. Presumably that 1% is about 300 lives. Not a bad return on some legislation to ban a product that absolutely no one can justify owning.

No one needs a military grade semi-automic weapon. How can this be so hard to accept?

@Alphaape, again, please learn to pay attention. Read what's there, not what you want to be there.

"Fundamental to it will be admitting there is a crisis and examining the root causes of gun crime: what drives disenfranchised young men into gangs, and impoverished individuals to crime."

What part of this sentence can possibly be confused with James Holmes' circumstances? The triggers for his sort of actions, if ever, will only be understood well after the event.

**Show me one major religion that says guns should be banned: The US Conference of Catholic Bishops (representing 77m Americans) has been calling for decades for "effective and courageous action to control handguns, leading to their eventual elimination from our society."

@Noliving, the pedantic gun trivia is a bit excessive. The Aurora bereaved will be relieved that Holmes' AR-15 wasn't technically an assault rifle. I like the fairy tale about a thrown knife traveling faster than a bullet.

And to all of you that are toting this anti gun redirect, I am sure those millions of people who own those guns already are just going to turn the in right?

This world needs to think globally but act LOCALLY, the UN, etc..should address this problem, how many people get killed by guns, rifles, machine guns etc..every year, I am sure we can GOOGLE it up or find on Wikipedia, but gawd almighty writing from Japan, not the USA, I sure as hell feel way safer about not being surround by gun toting nuts who may get a bit too much drugs or alcohol and start shooting away in funny places, like at church, subways, buses, trains, oh, I do not want to forget at movie theaters and my guess very soon, at sporting events, because the low lives are already beating each others brains out in the parking lots etc..of every major NFL pre season game, so why not take it to the next logical level and isntead of beating the hell out of a rival fan, say the Raiders vs. the 49rs, or the Yankees vs. the Red Sox, take your pick just start shooting as much as you can, and go back and have a few more cold beers??

Elbuda Mexicano

Your last post mentions all the places a psychotic mass killer may strike next. Since as it has been discussed that such a person will find the weapons he needs one way or another, then it will come down on the various institutions to provide better security. I bet there is a very good chance we will start seeing airport style security at the larger theaters, sporting arenas and the like in the next few years. But there is numerous downsides to that, the increased costs that will be passed onto the consumer. The time delays getting into the place you want to be. And only the secured area can be presumed to be safe, the parking lots and open fields and other open areas like shopping malls are still vulnerable. One upside to increased security, it will mean more minimum wage jobs for security guards.

you then do think you need to have a weapon because you, or the others you are mentioning, do not trust the government? Get some fresh air.

@ presto365: To think that me and my hand gun will be able to take on the entire American government is foolish. It wouldn't happen since they out gun me. However, if I had a gun, I would more likely be able to defend my home against an intruder a lot better, especially if I lived (and I have) in remote areas. Calling 911 when you live in a rural area takes a long time for a sheriff to get there sometimes.

Using the original Hebrew to rationalize homicidal fantasies is creative. However, 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' is understood as precisely that by 2.1 billion Christians (Pew Forum), and I doubt they'd consider this core tenet of their faith negotiable.

@ SenseNotSoCommon: And yet you look further into the Bible, and it tells us that "There is a time to kill as well as a time of war" (as well as a time not to kill and a time of peace). But nowhere does it say "ban all guns."

No one needs a military grade semi-automic weapon. How can this be so hard to accept?

Because no one ever uses them for crime. Hunting guns are twice to three times as likely to be used for crimes than a military grade semi-automatic weapon. Military grade semi-automatic weapons are the least used guns for crime. Military grade weapons are great for target shooting, hunting and home defense. They are weigh less on average, they are more ergonomic and they require less maintenance and they work in all kinds of environments. You have to understand that military grade weapons are not as lethal as hunting guns, military wants them for their practicality not for how lethal they are. You can still hunt with military grade semi-automatic weapons just fine you just gotta be closer to the target, hunting rifles are very powerful and the primary reason is due to range. Hunting rifles are all about range.

Saving the lives of the 1% killed with those weapons. Presumably that 1% is about 300 lives. Not a bad return on some legislation to ban a product that absolutely no one can justify owning.

More like less than 100, I said homicides, there are about 9000-10,000 homicides by guns. About 20,000 gun deaths are suicides. So 1% in terms of gun homicides would more likely be 100 or less and then you consider there is 50 million military grade semi automatic weapons in the US.....That means the fatality rate of them is 0.000002%, or in other words for every 500,000 military grade semi automatic weapon there is 1 death.

Actually it is a bad return considering 600 people die by just simply falling out of their bed each year in the US.

www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1562978,00.html

Only in America!

What are you going to do with a gun except shoot someone?

How about hunting for food to feed your family, and yes even in this day and age there are people who need to do so in the U.S. and in other countries as well.

True. In the Ozarks they do hunt for food with guns.

How about for recreation, which I participate, for some of us it is a pleasurable challenge to place a projectile into a specific point 100 meters away, with the variables of ammunition manufactures and weather no two target shoots are ever the same. And shooting is even in the Olympics.

Actually I used to shoot for recreation, so I understand.

So, sure have your guns, it's fine. Just regulate sensibly like most other countries. No assault rifles and no handguns would be a great start.

No one needs a military grade semi-automic weapon. How can this be so hard to accept?

Because no one ever uses them for crime.

Ummm, I think one person did in Aurora recently, but maybe you missed this.

You have to understand that military grade weapons are not as lethal as hunting guns...

Umm, yes they are. Hunting rifles have to be reloaded. Someone on a killing spree is way more effective with a semi-automatic weapon.

Noliving and Alphaape have very capably demonstrated how obsessive, absolutist, blinkered and disingenuous the US gun culture can be. One highlight was that the Bible doesn't call to 'ban all guns'. We wonder why not.

Homicide victims: fellow American parents, children, spouses, siblings, friends abruptly wrenched forever from their loved ones, are diminished and objectified as statistics. Heck, six hundred people a year die from falling out of bed, so what's the big worry?

Thank you, Matthew for being a respectful, reasonable and reassuring voice in what was a shrill debate.

An excellent article, fully referenced with links to sound academic research (not junk science), explodes some of the fear-mongering myths used to nourish the US gun culture: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-a-henigan/why-the-nra-wants-the-tra_b_1471897.html?ref=politics

Peace to all

You have to understand that military grade weapons are not as lethal as hunting guns...

What? Someone should inform the Pentagon, quickly!

Noliving

Because no one ever uses them for crime.

Really? So you obviously didnt read this story then did you?

You have to understand that military grade weapons are not as lethal as hunting guns, military wants them for their practicality not for how lethal they are.

What!! Are you serious. So an AR-15 with a range of 400-600 meters isnt as lethal as a hunting rifle. Yeah sure. Im tipping you are either having a joke here or have no idea what your talking about. The military use rifles that have stopping and killing power. That is what they are designed for, for putting the most lead into a target in the shortest time and stopping it cold.

You can still hunt with military grade semi-automatic weapons just fine you just gotta be closer to the target, hunting rifles are very powerful and the primary reason is due to range. Hunting rifles are all about range.

So are military rifles. Which is why many if not all rifles have an effective range of 1/2 a kilometer. The same as a hunting rifle. The only difference if a hunting rifle (bolt action) is one shot a semi auto AR-15 is up to 100 rounds in quick succession. So which is more likely to hit the target and kill the target? The one firing 1 round or the one firing numerous rounds....

lucabrasiJul. 27, 2012 - 11:01AM JST

You have to understand that military grade weapons are not as lethal as hunting guns...

What? Someone should inform the Pentagon, quickly!

Luc' The "Pentagon" already knows. In the military as in business, everything is a trade-off and also subject to rigorous Risk Analysis. The average soldier needs lots of rounds and an easy to handle weapon. This is where the "assault" rifle came from. Even Kalashnikov came out with a lighter round that compares with our M-16 5.56mm round. If they need to go heavy, the M-14 and larger weapons are available. That's the NATO 7.62x51 cartridge which would be an excellent hunting load comparable to the 30-30 Springfield.

20/20: "Umm, yes they are. Hunting rifles have to be reloaded. Someone on a killing spree is way more effective with a semi-automatic weapon."

Ever see that old TV show The Rifleman? The was a late 1800s style lever action rifle with a cut down stock. You could load ten rounds in that tube and feed rounds in by hand. Great hunting rifle and also the weapon Sitting Bull used to defeat Custer at the Little Big Horn in the 1870s. So, you see rapid action firearms have been with us for a long time.

Getting back to the main topic: "Gun Free" means low risk to the nefarious person up to no good. I tend to avoid them when possible.

Just some info for you all,

Do not compare military and hunting rifles it is a non comparison since you can get hunting rifles or military rifles that are greater than or equal to each other. A little info for you the three most common NATO calibers are 5.56mm, 7.62, and .50BMG those has exact home use equivalents. 5.56 = .223, 7.62 = .308, .50 = .50 the main different is semi versus fully automatic.

And automatic weapons are available for home use with proper permits.

Rest assured a trained individual could cause the same or greater damage with a pump action or bolt action rifle. I think that in the case of the Theater shooting which this article stems from its very lucky that more people weren't killed.

Really? So you obviously didnt read this story then did you?

Oh for the love of....I was making a generalized statement there. Is that so hard for you to figure out? When less than 1% of gun crime is committed with military style semi-automatic rifles that would pretty much mean that pretty much no one ever uses them for crimes, that doesn't mean they haven't been used, it means that the odds of them being used are so remote that its next to never ever happening.

For example if I said that less than 1% of car thefts were ford models and I said no one ever steals ford cars would you honestly question me for making that statement?

What!! Are you serious. So an AR-15 with a range of 400-600 meters isnt as lethal as a hunting rifle. Yeah sure. Im tipping you are either having a joke here or have no idea what your talking about. The military use rifles that have stopping and killing power.

Of course the military uses rifles that have stopping and killing power. However though they are not as powerful as your average hunting rifle. Again the primary motivation behind such guns isn't killing power its their practicality, their ruggedness. Hunting rifles are all about range and killing power.

No the AR-15 .223 round is not as lethal as your average hunting rifle.

Take for example the Winchester 1895, popular target shooting and hunting gun. Most popular calibers are the .30-06 and the .405

The most powerful .223 round that the AR-15 shoots will hit you with about 1,807 J of energy. Weakest/Lowest is 1,524 J.

The most powerful .30-06 round will hit you with about 4,042 J of energy. Weakest/Lowest is 3,820 J.

The .405 round will hit you with about 4,387 J of energy.

Take for example the .300 WSM Magnum Lite Graphite Rifle, it fires a .300 Winchester caliber of bullet it will hit you with about 5,548 J of energy. Weakest/Lowest is 5,278 J of energy. That rifle is accurate at about 1,000 yards. Expensive but popular hunting rifle.

So although the AR-15 has range, no greater range than the calibers listed above in fact less in most cases, it doesn't really have the lethal force of a hunting gun. Like I said Hunting rifles are far more lethal than military grade rifles. Military grade weapons are about having the minimum amount of force necessary to stop a target. You know why? Because smaller calibers of bullets weigh less it also means you can carry more of them into combat. Again Military grade weapons are about practicality not about how lethal they are. Military values weight, ease of use, modularity , and the ability of the weapon to fire in all environmental conditions without jamming or in other words ruggedness.

Did you honestly believe military grade weapons were all about maximum or ultimate stopping power?

So are military rifles

No they(Assault rifles) are not. If that was the case they would still have the range of a lee enfield or a kar98. For example the .30-06 effective range on average is 600-800+ meters. If you get the supersonic kind of them it is easily past 1,000 meters.

Battle rifles are the last rifles that were built for range that were standard issue for soldiers in a military.

The average assault rifles effective range is 300-500 meters. Average hunting rifle effective range is greater than 600 meters.

hunting rifle (bolt action)

Whoa whoa whoa, where are you getting that hunting rifles means bolt action? There are a lot of semi automatic, pump action, lever action hunting rifles out there besides bolt action.

So which is more likely to hit the target and kill the target? The one firing 1 round or the one firing numerous rounds....

Depends on the environment, the gun, the caliber of bullet, the quality of ammunition, and how well the person has setup their sights.

What? Someone should inform the Pentagon, quickly!

No someone needs to inform Cletus of that.

Americans on the whole love guns. Many Americans live in perceived fear and feel the need to arm themselves.

Advice to peace loving Americans, move to another country where you can live without thinking or need to talk about guns. Leave the cowboys to shoot themselves up like the wild west.

Gun's don't kill people, People do.

This is a saying that goes back to the very founding of America, and you know what? It's true. We fought wars before the era of the gun, with swords and arrows. The entire idea of a armed populace is to A. Prevent crime (A man goes to rob a store, but then he finds several guns trained on him) and to protect our sovereign nation from invasion, foreign and domestic (It is easier to invade a country where the only defenses are the military, contrast with America, where any citizen can defend their homeland at any time). It's a old, unspoken law, and those whom claim it is wrong are sadly mistaken. You outlaw weapons, and criminals will be the ones with the weapons in their hand, not caring for these laws you speak of. My opinion is that I rather be armed and able to defend myself, then to be put into a position where I am unarmed awaiting rescue.

You outlaw weapons, and criminals will be the ones with the weapons in their hand, not caring for these laws you speak of.

What kind of senseless rhetoric is this?? You assume that somehow all citizens would relinquish their weapons and the government would overlook criminals keeping theirs? What?!?

The entire idea of a armed populace is to A. Prevent crime (A man goes to rob a store, but then he finds several guns trained on him)

WRONG.

No the AR-15 .223 round is not as lethal as your average hunting rifle.

This is a gross miss-understatement. While serving in the armed forces. I witnesses one of my comrades get shot by 1-single round (accidentally) which tumbled inside his body, then finally coming to rest far from the entrance wound. Many of his internal organs had been severely damaged. The initial entrance wound did not bleed much and was hard to locate, but he died from all the internal damage.

A firearm, any firearm, has one single purpose. That purpose is to kill. The lethal measure is disputable until you become a victim of a firearm assault.

Not intending to sound insensitive, but as the saying goes, this is the bed the Americans made; now they gotta sleep in it.

This is a gross miss-understatement. While serving in the armed forces. I witnesses one of my comrades get shot by 1-single round (accidentally) which tumbled inside his body, then finally coming to rest far from the entrance wound. Many of his internal organs had been severely damaged. The initial entrance wound did not bleed much and was hard to locate, but he died from all the internal damage.

No its not at all a gross miss-understatement, what your referring to is yawing. If I took a 30-06 and made that caliber of bullet yaw like the .223 round does which one would leave a more devastating wound? Clearly the 30-06 would.

I never stated that the .223 round couldn't killed or inflict serious wounds. I stated that .223 round is not as lethal as your average hunting rifle caliber such as .30-06 or the .405. That statement is true. Are you claiming that the .223 is just as deadly as the .30-06?

Not intending to sound insensitive, but as the saying goes, this is the bed the Americans made; now they gotta sleep in it.

Fine by me, we have bigger threats to our society then guns, for example obesity kills nearly 600,000 people each year and is growing in the US.

This is a gross miss-understatement. While serving in the armed forces. I witnesses one of my comrades get shot by 1-single round (accidentally) which tumbled inside his body, then finally coming to rest far from the entrance wound. Many of his internal organs had been severely damaged. The initial entrance wound did not bleed much and was hard to locate, but he died from all the internal damage.

No it is not. a gross miss-understatement. I stated that the .223 round is a lethal round, my claim which is backed up by ballistics tests is that the average hunting round is more lethal or does more damage to tissue than the .223 round. .30-06 is more powerful than the .223 round. The .405 is more powerful/lethal than the .223 round. Those are facts. By your argument the .223 round is just as deadly as the .50 caliber.

The lethal measure is disputable until you become a victim of a firearm assault.

That is absurd, you ever heard of ballistics gel? It's pretty accurate on being able to determine the lethal measure. You don't have to be a victim of a firearm assault to know it.

Not intending to sound insensitive, but as the saying goes, this is the bed the Americans made; now they gotta sleep in it.

Fine by me, more people die by alcohol in this country than are murdered by someone using a gun on them.

Mostly it's the gangs that have the guns. They shoot each other, and at houses, where their enemy lives. Usually a young innocent child gets hit then. So, the first thing that would have to be done, is to make sure the gangs don't have guns. Any ideas. Also, we need to recognize when someone needs Mental Health Care. It would be stupid to take away guns from law abiding citizens. Start with the crackheads.

Not intending to sound insensitive, but as the saying goes, this is the bed the Americans made; now they gotta sleep in it.

Fine by me.

you ever heard of ballistics gel? It's pretty accurate on being able to determine the lethal measure. You don't have to be a victim of a firearm assault to know it.

This is absurd. Ballistic gel has not internal organs, no bones, no nervous system, no muscles. You are comparing some jelly mixture with the human body to determine level of lethality? Surely.

For all you posters saying that defense against the government is an artifact of times gone past, you need only recognize recent episodes of police in California opening fire (with dummy rounds) on peaceful protestors. If the dummy rounds cease to be effective at dispersing gathered citizens, it's only a short step up to live ammunition-- and then what?

With regards to general gun ownership for private citizens; this is a very caustic topic. I am a gun owner and would consider myself center-right on most political issues. However, I would be VERY comfortable with increased, EFFECTIVE, screening measures for pistol permit applications (and maybe even a ban on "assault-type" weapons). I didn't feel like it was overly easy to get my permit to carry, but maybe that was just my state-- it varies based on where you live. There are certainly other places that need harsher evaluations, and for me, the process becoming a little more difficult does not equate to losing my gun rights.

A+b/a=a/b≡?Jul. 30, 2012 - 08:16AM JST

you ever heard of ballistics gel? It's pretty accurate on being able to determine the lethal measure. You don't have to be a victim of a firearm assault to know it.

This is absurd. Ballistic gel has not internal organs, no bones, no nervous system, no muscles. You are comparing some jelly mixture with the human body to determine level of lethality? Surely.

This is the stuff serious researchers, forensic investigators, police, and military use to answer ballistics questions. Gel dummies with bones were used to prove the JFK "Magic Bullet" was possible. High speed photos of the stuff in action show the true level of devastation that happens when a round transfers its energy to the block and test results are repeatable. Not absurd.

@Jerome: YES, I know what this gel is, how it is made, etc. I actually have personal and professional experience with it. You, on the other hand, may not. But, I am sure you will say you do.

I cannot reply to part of your post as it is not visible.

You are making an argument that is not necessary. I make the same reasoning. A bullet, no matter size, dimensions, or other properties is most definitely lethal. I was not disputing this. I clearly stated, that there is no LEVEL of lethality based on dimensions or grade of a bullet -even a .22 can kill.

Comparing gel to the human body is just that an attempt at comparison it is NOT equal. This is where you are incorrect.

And automatic weapons are available for home use with proper permits.

Yeah, because automatic weapons are fun for the whole family to play with... ;-)

Actually fully automatic weapons are banned in the US. And between 1994 and 2004 the sale of assault weapons and magazines holding more than ten bullets was banned. If they still were banned, most likely the death toll would be lower.

JeromefromUtah

20/20: "Umm, yes they are. Hunting rifles have to be reloaded. Someone on a killing spree is way more effective with a semi-automatic weapon."

Ever see that old TV show The Rifleman? The was a late 1800s style lever action rifle with a cut down stock. You could load ten rounds in that tube and feed rounds in by hand. Great hunting rifle and also the weapon Sitting Bull used to defeat Custer at the Little Big Horn in the 1870s. So, you see rapid action firearms have been with us for a long time.

I'd still say an assault weapon armed with 100 round clips will beat a hunting rifle any day for maximum number of death and injury. It's just fortunate that his assault rifle jammed.

You are making an argument that is not necessary. I make the same reasoning. A bullet, no matter size, dimensions, or other properties is most definitely lethal. I was not disputing this. I clearly stated, that there is no LEVEL of lethality based on dimensions or grade of a bullet -even a .22 can kill.

Oh please. Now your just grasping at straws, ballistics gel is used to determine the type of tissue damage that can occur. Yes it doesn't have bones or organs or a nervous system but it does mimic the damage that a bullet will do to human tissue. If you place bones in it it will also mimic the type of damage that a bullet will do to a bone.

What is your point? No one said a .22 can't kill, what we are saying is that different types of bullets have different types of stopping power or damage. Why do police use 9mm instead of .22? Do you honestly believe that a .22 can compare to a .50 caliber in terms of damage it can inflict? Be honest do you honestly believe that? If you had a choice of being shot by a .22 or a .50 caliber which one would you choose?

A .30-06 caliber is more likely to kill you than a .22 that is a fact.

Actually fully automatic weapons are banned in the US. And between 1994 and 2004 the sale of assault weapons and magazines holding more than ten bullets was banned. If they still were banned, most likely the death toll would be lower.

Really than why can I buy one in the US legally? The only thing that is banned was the further production of fully automatics for the civilian market in 1986. Bwahaha, after 2004 studies were done on the effectiveness of the AWB it was determined that any effect it had on crime was negligible at best. You know why? Because military style semi-automatic rifles make up less than 1% of gun crime. Besides during the awb they made XR-15's. Google an XR-15. All magazines larger than 10 rounds were grand fathered during the awb. According to the FBI the average gun battle in the US lasts 2.5 seconds and around 4.5 rounds are fired. Limiting magazine size to 10 rounds won't have any impact on crime considering the average gun battle only fires 4.5 rounds. Guess how many magazines larger than 10 rounds existed during 1994? Hundreds of millions.

I'd still say an assault weapon armed with 100 round clips will beat a hunting rifle any day for maximum number of death and injury. It's just fortunate that his assault rifle jammed.

Semi-automatic hunting rifle with a 100 round magazines will beat any "assault weapon" any day for maximum number of death and injury. His rifle was not an assault rifle. In order for it to be an assault rifle it has to be a fully automatic which it was not.

I'd still say an assault weapon armed with 100 round clips will beat a hunting rifle any day for maximum number of death and injury. It's just fortunate that his assault rifle jammed.

I'm willing to bet a ruger mini 14 ranch rifle with a 100 round magazine will be a an "assault weapon" any day for maximum number of death and injury.

Noliving

I'm willing to bet a ruger mini 14 ranch rifle with a 100 round magazine will be a an "assault weapon" any day for maximum number of death and injury.

May be so. However, the Ruger mini only comes with 20 round magazines. In any case this would have been illegal from 1993 to 2003. Why did this change. No hunter needs an assault rifle with 100 round magazine. So make them illegal. Again.

Really than why can I buy one in the US legally?

You can't.

You know why? Because military style semi-automatic rifles make up less than 1% of gun crime.

And your point is? We need military style semi-automatics? I think not. 1% is still too much for a gun that nobody needs.

Guess how many magazines larger than 10 rounds existed during 1994? Hundreds of millions.

Yes maybe. But illegal. For good reason and the Aurora tragedy shows why.

According to the FBI the average gun battle in the US lasts 2.5 seconds and around 4.5 rounds are fired. Limiting magazine size to 10 rounds won't have any impact on crime considering the average gun battle only fires 4.5 rounds.

Yes. And you also said that nobody uses assault weapons in crimes. Wrong. You constantly fall into the mistake of using averages. Was the Aurora shooting spree average? No. Would he have been less successful with 10 round magazines. Maybe (it jammed). But the point is, making assault weapons and more than 10 round cartridges would have had an effect.

Now maybe you can explain to me how outlawing assault rifles and large round cartridges would hurt American freedom.

Had someone in the theater been armed its likely that far few people would have been wounded or killed. Until America returns to its original position on the 2nd Amendment more people will be hurt. I Cr 13:8a

Had someone in the theater been armed its likely that far few people would have been wounded or killed.

Not true. Several people were armed. But what are you going to do when somebody throws in smoke grenades, wearing body armor and has an assault rifle.

Until America returns to its original position on the 2nd Amendment more people will be hurt.

It's original position was muskets. Not assault rifles.

May be so. However, the Ruger mini only comes with 20 round magazines. In any case this would have been illegal from 1993 to 2003. Why did this change. No hunter needs an assault rifle with 100 round magazine. So make them illegal. Again.

Your point? I don't know a single rifle that comes with a 100 round magazine. 100 round magazines are always after market product. The ruger mini 14 ranch rifle with a 100 round magazine could take on any "assault weapon".

The 20 round magazines were grand fathered in during the AWB, even if they would have been illegal to buy a brand new one you could just simply go to the used market and buy a whole bunch of them legally.

No hunter needs an assault rifle with 100 round magazine. So make them illegal. Again.

No hunter needs a firearm of any type they can use a bow and arrow or just their bare hands or a trap. So why use a gun to begin with? A hunter may not, depends on how many tags he has been give along with how well of a shot that hunter is but a target shooter definitely would benefit from a 100 round magazine. Besides the larger the magazine the more likely the gun is to jam.

You can't.

Yes you can. Machine guns made prior to May 1986 and registered with the federal government are legal for civilians to own and are transferable. You need to get a class 3 license.

www.ehow.com/how_6742869_fully-automatic-gun-license.html

www.autoweapons.com/products/products.html

Yes maybe. But illegal. For good reason and the Aurora tragedy shows why.

No they were not illegal, they were grandfathered in. Read the AWB of 1994 and you will see that all magazines larger than 10 rounds prior to the AWB were grandfathered in, that means hundreds of millions to billions of magazines larger than 10 rounds were legal to sell and buy during the AWB.

Yes. And you also said that nobody uses assault weapons in crimes. Wrong. You constantly fall into the mistake of using averages. Was the Aurora shooting spree average? No.

Actually it was, the vast majority of people shot and killed or wounded in that incident was by the shotgun and handguns he was using not his rifle.

Would he have been less successful with 10 round magazines. Maybe (it jammed). But the point is, making assault weapons and more than 10 round cartridges would have had an effect.

Probably not because magazines take less than a second to change and recharge the gun. 10 round magazines also have a lower rate of jamming compared to a 100 round magazine. It is well known in the gun communities that larger magazines jam all the time, that is why no one including the military uses them. It is actually a good thing he was using a 100 round magazine because it caused his gun to jam at around round 21, if he would have been using the standard 30 round magazine for such a rifle it most likely would have never jammed. If he would have used a 10 round magazine the chances of it jamming are pretty much never going to happen. How do you get 10 rounds in one cartridge?

Now maybe you can explain to me how outlawing assault rifles and large round cartridges would hurt American freedom.

Well considering the shooter at AURORA didn't use an assault rifle the answer would be none. Large round cartridges? Do you even know what your talking about? The answer to your question about American freedom is that the second amendment is not about hunters or target shooters, it was not created for them. The second amendment was created so that people could own the firearms that are in common use by militaries around the world and thus would be a properly armed militia.

Now tell me how banning assault rifles will make you safer considering one was not used at the Aurora incident and the last recorded legally produced machine gun that killed somebody was in 1940, if you look at the top ten guns used in crimes in the US by the FBI you will not find a single "Assault weapon" on it.

Not true. Several people were armed. But what are you going to do when somebody throws in smoke grenades, wearing body armor and has an assault rifle.

He didn't have an assault rifle. His he wasn't wearing any body armor, this is what he was wearing:

tacticalgear.com/blackhawk-urban-assault-vest

What he was wearing was made of heavy duty nylon, there was no kevlar or any other bullet resistant materials in that vest, and that link is the exact link where he got that supposed "body armor"

What would a police officers have done? The first responders don't have gas masks and if he was wearing bullet resistance vests they don't carry armor piercing ammo.

It's original position was muskets. Not assault rifles.

Right, well than freedom of speech, freedom of press and freedom of expression is down to just news papers and books and your voice not: internet, TV, Movies, etc...

The 2nd amendment is about guns that are in common use by military at any time, in other words the standard issue gun for a soldier.

Now tell me how banning assault rifles will make you safer considering one was not used at the Aurora incident

Wrong. He used an assault rifle.

The second amendment was created so that people could own the firearms that are in common use by militaries around the world and thus would be a properly armed militia.

Yes, and the reason being so civilians can defend themselves against the government. Obviously not needed.

Technology will again befuddle and frustrate the opponents of the 2nd Amendment. Just this month an American inventor with a 3D 'printer' designed and printed up his self a gun.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/312627/guns-dont-kill-people-3-d-printers-do-charles-c-w-cooke

Wrong. He used an assault rifle.

No I'm not wrong. In order to be an assault rifle the gun has to be fully automatic. The gun he used was not a fully automatic. All definitions of an assault rifle state it has to have a selective fire mode, meaning you can switch from semi-automatic to fully automatic and vice versa. By your argument the M1 Garand is an assault rifle, which it is not.

Yes, and the reason being so civilians can defend themselves against the government. Obviously not needed.

And to defend against outside threats. Really not needed? You ever heard of President George Bush Jr.? You ever heard of the patriot act?

Noliving

And to defend against outside threats. Really not needed? You ever heard of President George Bush Jr.? You ever heard of the patriot act?

And this statement on its own answers the age old question. Are Americans gun nuts? So you dont like the former US president or an act of congress so that is your right to be armed. Wow..... Says a lot there.

There are 11 countries with more firearm death than the US. A country with no firearm death is Romania which have the toughest gun ownership laws in the world. They murder rate is 47 countries higher the lowest, Monaco. So even without lethal weapons, people find a way.

So you dont like the former US president or an act of congress so that is your right to be armed. Wow..... Says a lot there.

2020 stated that it was not needed because he doesn't believe that the US government could ever become tyrannical. I'm using the former president, the one that setup Guantanamo bay prison, the one that believed torture is justified, the one that urged the passing of a bill that stripped Americans of many protections from the US government. Now you have President Obama doing illegal drone strikes and executing American citizens without a trial.

Your comment says more than my comment does Cletus.