Those Damn Guns Again

[thoughtone]

source: CNN

Bloomberg demands gun action from Obama and Romney

(CNN) – New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an outspoken advocate of stricter gun-control laws, said in a radio interview Friday the two candidates for president needed to take a firmer line in addressing gun violence.

Bloomberg's comments came as police and the FBI were investigating a deadly shooting in Colorado that left at least 12 people dead.

"Soothing words are nice, but maybe it's time that the two people who want to be president of the United States stand up and tell us what they are going to do about it, because this is obviously a problem across the country," Bloomberg said on WOR Radio's "The John Gambling Show."

Bloomberg continued, saying Friday's tragedy should spark greater focus on how guns reach killers.

"I mean, there are so many murders with guns every day, it's just got to stop," Bloomberg said. "And instead of the two people – President Obama and Governor Romney – talking in broad things about they want to make the world a better place, okay, tell us how."

"In the end, it is really the leadership at a national level, which is whoever is going to be president of the United States starting next January 1st – what are they going to do about guns?" Bloomberg asked.

Presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney met with Bloomberg in May, but an aide to the mayor said Bloomberg remained undecided about making an endorsement in the presidential race. Bloomberg won his last election as a political independent, but was previously a Democrat, then a Republican.

In his interview Friday, Bloomberg said guns getting into hands of criminals wasn't solely a problem in cities like New York.

"This is killing people every day, and it's growing and it's not just an inner-city, east coast, west coast, big city phenomenon. Aurora is not a big city," Bloomberg said, referring to the suburb of Denver where Friday's shooting took place.

[wedrinkandscrew]

Man I'm all for carrying pistols or having guns in your home but I will never understand why Joe Schmoe should be able to walk around with a fucking assualt rifle.

[thoughtone]

Originally Posted by wedrinkandscrew

Man I'm all for carrying pistols or having guns in your home but I will never understand why Joe Schmoe should be able to walk around with a fucking assualt rifle.

Man with assault weapon shoots up Tuscaloosa bar, 17 hurt

Can't blame this on Eric Holder or President Obama. NRA is against any reguation on assualt weapons.

Less regulation?

[QueEx]

Originally Posted by thoughtone

Those Damn Guns Again

You mean the ones that never killed anyone

[thoughtone]

Originally Posted by QueEx

You mean the ones that never killed anyone

or

...or the ones that will in the future?

[QueEx]

Originally Posted by thoughtone

or

...or the ones that will in the future?

. . . or the ones that don't ???

[thoughtone]

Originally Posted by QueEx

. . . or the ones that don't ???

The ones who's primary purpose is to maim and kill, which is all of them.

[QueEx]

Originally Posted by thoughtone

The ones who's primary purpose is to maim and kill, which is all of them.

Oh, those are the ones I thought you meant.

[actinanass]

*sigh*

Have any of you ever took a CHL class?

[thoughtone]

Originally Posted by actinanass

*sigh*

Have any of you ever took a CHL class?

Coming from Texas, the death capital of the US. typical!

[actinanass]

Originally Posted by thoughtone

Coming from Texas, the death capital of the US. typical!

I thought Chicago was the death capital of the US?

[Lamarr]

[actinanass]

Originally Posted by Lamarr

[thoughtone]

Originally Posted by actinanass

I thought Chicago was the death capital of the US?

Before or after the right wing supreme court stuck down their local gun restrictions. So much for states rights!

BTW, just like the Mexican drug gangs, almost all of those illegal guns come from those states with anything goes gun sales. The fool that went off in Aurora got his guns for the local Bass Pro Shop.

[actinanass]

Originally Posted by thoughtone

Before or after the right wing supreme court stuck down their local gun restrictions. So much for states rights!

BTW, just like the Mexican drug gangs, almost all of those illegal guns come from those states with anything goes gun sales. The fool that went off in Aurora got his guns for the local Bass Pro Shop.

So, your answer is to punish every other citizen for what ONE lunatic does?

You must have great kids....

[thoughtone]

[thoughtone]

[thoughtone]

Originally Posted by actinanass

So, your answer is to punish every other citizen for what ONE lunatic does?

You must have great kids....

Evidently this guy was considered rather intelligent.

The gun laws are a joke. Anybody can get a gun. I'm not against guns per se, just the lax restrictions on who can get them. Of course you can arm everyone to prevent anyone from using them (twisted logic), but you know who will be the recipient of the worst of it. Black men, who are automatically considered suspicious.

BTW the Aurora shooter was clad in body amour and he used tear gas. I guess everyone should walk around with gas masks to prevent this. Right?

[Fuckallyall]

Originally Posted by thoughtone

Evidently this guy was considered rather intelligent.
The gun laws are a joke. Anybody can get a gun. I'm not against guns per se, just the lax restrictions on who can get them. Of course you can arm everyone to prevent anyone from using them (twisted logic), but you know who will be the recipient of the worst of it. Black men, who are automatically considered suspicious.

BTW the Aurora shooter was clad in body amour and he used tear gas. I guess everyone should walk around with gas masks to prevent this. Right?

Intelligence has no bearing on sanity.

Guns are for shooting, you are right. But shooting what ?

Of course this guy did wrong, but disarming the populace won't help. The cities with the worse gun violence are usually the cities with the heaviest "resrictions". Stop your panicking.

[QueEx]

Originally Posted by Fuckallyall

Intelligence has no bearing on sanity.

Guns are for shooting, you are right. But shooting what ?

Of course this guy did wrong, but disarming the populace won't help. The cities with the worse gun violence are usually the cities with the heaviest "resrictions". Stop your panicking.

Is disarmament the end-all of gun control ??? I'm a 2nd Amendment proponent, nevertheless, I don't believe that the right to bear means its unbridled.

Regarding your last comment, could you please post those statistics (cities worst violence vs. heaviest restrictions). Thanks in advance.

[QueEx]

Originally Posted by actinanass

So, your answer is to punish every other citizen for what ONE lunatic does?

You must have great kids....

I'm not heavy on quoting Wiki, but here's this interesting tidbit:

There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.[4] The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[5] with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.[6]

ONE lunatic ???

Of course, one can make a number of arguments from the numbers, but one that cannot be made is that gun violence in this country is a mere, isolated incident.

BTW, for gun control to constitute a punishment upon "every other citizen" as you put it -- the right to bear arms would have to be based upon the notion that the Second Amendment allows NO restrictions upon the right. That, sir, is simply not the law.

[QueEx]

Originally Posted by Lamarr

The implication: A safer society secured through a cold war of all against all.

Is that reallly workable ???

Is that really where we want to go ???

[thoughtone]

Originally Posted by QueEx

The implication: A safer society secured through a cold war of all against all.

Is that reallly workable ???

Is that really where we want to go ???

Mutual
Assured
Destruction

[thoughtone]

Originally Posted by Fuckallyall

Intelligence has no bearing on sanity.

So all of us are potential crack pots

Guns are for shooting, you are right. But shooting what ?

The main purpose of guns is to kill or maim. Everything else is collateral.

Of course this guy did wrong, but disarming the populace won't help. The cities with the worse gun violence are usually the cities with the heaviest "resrictions". Stop your panicking.

You are pulling comments out of your ass. Post the information so I don't have to.

New York is by far the safest big city and city of any size in the US. Boston is very safe also. Guns are very difficult to purchase legally in those cities.

[QueEx]

Originally Posted by thoughtone

Musial
Assured
Destruction

"Let's call this thing exactly what it is . . ."

- Aretha, Rock Steady

[Lamarr]

Originally Posted by thoughtone

The main purpose of guns is to kill or maim. Everything else is collateral.

WRONG! The main purpose of a law-abiding citizens' gun is to neutralize a threat.

That response may be over your head but if anyone has been a victim of a violent crime, it's very well understood

[new 2 this]

I believe everyone should have the right to protect themselves. If some how I found myself in a bad situation where my life was threatened, I would pull out my firearm to defend myself. That is the only reason I would ever pull it out. I think every citizen should have this right.

Unfortunately, this does mean that some crazy people get guns. The question is, what restrictions or testing are you guys suggesting? Do you think that all citizens should be restricted of their right to carry a firearm? Should citizens only be allowed to have them at their homes?


Guns in the wrong hands kills people. Alcohol in the wrong person (drunk driver) kills people. We don't ban alcohol, but rather go against those that abuse it by driving drunk.

[actinanass]

How can anyone propose a gun control law when it seems like every city/state that has strict gun control laws have a really bad crime issue in their big city?

BTW, isn't it ironic that situations like Aurora tend to happen in Blue states?

[Upgrade Dave]

Originally Posted by Lamarr

Damn, so the Congresswoman gets shot twice going by this picture.

Originally Posted by QueEx

Is disarmament the end-all of gun control ??? I'm a 2nd Amendment proponent, nevertheless, I don't believe that the right to bear means its unbridled.

Regarding your last comment, could you please post those statistics (cities worst violence vs. heaviest restrictions). Thanks in advance.

That's where they muddy the water in this conversation. They make it an argument of extremes when most people are really in the middle.

[thoughtone]

Originally Posted by actinanass

How can anyone propose a gun control law when it seems like every city/state that has strict gun control laws have a really bad crime issue in their big city?

BTW, isn't it ironic that situations like Aurora tend to happen in Blue states?

You don't read very well. Dallas, and Houston wish they had the crime rate New York and Boston have. Colorado is a so called Blue State until recently. It is more accurately described as a swing state and their gun laws are just as much a joke as Texass. Their gun laws are so weak, one should ask why they even have gun laws. The most violent states are so called red states in the south. I know you know this because you have posted in the threads where I documented this. The republican, southern, conservative culture is violent. Period!

[thoughtone]

Originally Posted by Upgrade Dave

Damn, so the Congresswoman gets shot twice going by this picture.



That's where they muddy the water in this conversation. They make it an argument of extremes when most people are really in the middle.

Who's middle. The political spectrum has been drifting to the right for some time now.

[thoughtone]

source: New York Times

Colorado Gun Laws Remain Lax, Despite Some Changes


The news of the horrifying armed assault in Aurora, Colo. — just a half-hour drive from the site of the Columbine High School shootings in 1999 — has a freakish resonance in a state that has long played an unsought role in the national debate over gun laws and firearm rights.

As a mountain state, Colorado has a history of broad support for Second Amendment rights. But in the years since the Columbine tragedy, the state’s lawmakers and voters passed some gun restrictions, including requirements governing the sale of firearms at gun shows, a law regulating people’s ability to carry concealed weapons and legislation banning “straw purchases” of weapons for people who would not qualify to buy them legitimately.

Still, James Holmes, 24, the former neuroscience student believed to be the lone gunman in Friday’s shootings in Aurora, armed himself with an assault rifle, a shotgun and a handgun to allegedly kill 12 and wound 59 others, many critically. All were weapons that would probably be legal for him to possess.

“The guy basically had normal guns,” said Eugene Volokh, an expert in constitutional law at the University of California, Los Angeles. Unless some new evidence of documented psychiatric disturbance emerges, Mr. Volokh added, “there’s no indication that, from his record, he is someone whom more restrictive screening procedures would have caught.”

Despite the changes over the past 13 years, Colorado law still prohibits local governments from restricting gun rights in several significant ways. Moreover, gun rights organizations have successfully fought other efforts to restrict access to guns, including blocking a University of Colorado rule prohibiting concealed weapons on campus.
People in Colorado are allowed to carry firearms in a vehicle, loaded or unl
oaded, as long as the gun is intended for lawful uses like personal protection or protecting property.

Carrying a concealed weapon requires a permit, but Colorado is among those states whose rules on permits are relatively lax, said Heather Morton of the National Conference of State Legislatures. Colorado is one of 38 “shall issue” states. She explained that this meant “if a person complies with all of the requirements, then the state must issue a concealed weapons permit.” (By other measures, the number of states whose laws amount to “shall issue” is closer to 41.) Factors that might keep someone from being able to get a permit generally include felony convictions, mental illness or protective orders.

Other states have a tougher “may issue” law, which gives discretion to withhold a permit to an authority like the local sheriff or department of public safety.

Getting a concealed weapon permit in Denver is a relatively straightforward affair, according to materials put online by the Denver Police Department. Information forms and the application are available online; the process costs $152.50, payable by certified check or money order. Denver’s Web page describing the process warns, “Do not bring any weapon with you when you bring your application for review.”

The latest shootings will almost certainly lead to efforts to tighten gun laws. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence issued a statement that laid the blame on lax gun laws: “The horrendous shooting in Aurora, Colo., is yet another tragic reminder that we have a national problem of easy availability of guns in this country.”

On his weekly radio appearance Friday morning, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York called for the presidential candidates to make gun issues a part of their campaigns.

Yet another tragedy is not likely to shift the national debate over guns, said David Kopel, an adjunct professor at the University of Denver law school and the research director of the Independence Institute, a libertarian organization in Denver. He noted that gun violence did not seem to bring about national restrictions on gun rights.

“The gun prohibition people tried to use Gabrielle Giffords and the Trayvon Martin case to get their cause going again, and weren’t particularly successful with that,” he said.

At the state level, he added, having fought pitched battles over gun rights since the 1980s, “we’re at a reasonably well settled point,” and “the legislature is not that interested in opening it up again.”

Mr. Volokh said the fragmentary information available so far about Mr. Holmes and the attack did not make a strong case for reform.

“The only weapons-control solution that could do anything about this kind of murder would be a total ban on guns,” he said.

“It’s hard to prevent someone who is really bent on committing a crime from getting them,” he added, and “it’s unlikely that gun laws are going to stop him.”

In the never-ending argument, tragedy can become a talking point. Luke O’Dell, a spokesman for the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, a Colorado-based group that fights gun control measures, said private gun restrictions may well have had “tragic consequences” in the shootings.

He noted that the theater chain that owns the Aurora movie house bans firearms on the premises, and said that if other patrons had been legally able to carry weapons, the death toll might have been less. Mr. O’Dell also said that Mayor Bloomberg’s call for a discussion of gun issues was “exploiting the blood of these innocent victims to advance his political agenda.”

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: July 21, 2012


An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the institution where David Kopel serves as an adjunct professor of law. It is the University of Denver, not Denver University. In addition, an earlier correction misspelled the name of the University of Denver as Unixversity of Denver.

[Upgrade Dave]

Originally Posted by thoughtone

Who's middle. The political spectrum has been drifting to the right for some time now.

The middle. Most people are in favor of gun and ammunition laws but not in favor of outright bans of all firearms. I haven't seen anything that says most people dont think like that.

[QueEx]

Originally Posted by actinanass

How can anyone propose a gun control law when it seems like every city/state that has strict gun control laws have a really bad crime issue in their big city?

BTW, isn't it ironic that situations like Aurora tend to happen in Blue states?

Do you mind posting the stats to back that up ???

[QueEx]

Originally Posted by Fuckallyall

Intelligence has no bearing on sanity.

Guns are for shooting, you are right. But shooting what ?

Of course this guy did wrong, but disarming the populace won't help.

The cities with the worse gun violence are usually the cities with the heaviest "resrictions".

Stop your panicking.

Originally Posted by QueEx

Is disarmament the end-all of gun control ??? I'm a 2nd Amendment proponent, nevertheless, I don't believe that the right to bear means its unbridled.

Regarding your last comment, could you please post those statistics (cities worst violence vs. heaviest restrictions).

Thanks in advance.

I was hoping to read/analyze those statistics, ifyou have time to post them.