DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Massacre at Dark Knight Premiere in Aurora, Colorado

A .40 Glock, an 870 Remington shotgun and an AR15. Supposedly fired 80-100 rounds. Well they didnt come out of the first two!

Seems like these mass shootings always happen early in the day. Chardon and Columbine were first thing in the morning incidents...

This guy had all day to think about this and still did it, what a sick human being.

I know the world is on this anti-bullying campaign, and I 100% believe they should be, but I don't think that's any kind of excuse to go out and kill people (I don't know if bullying had anything to do with this, I know he was in college and not high school, but that angle is going to be looked at)

Quote:

---

AR-15 -- How in the hell did he get THAT?

---

Walk into ANY gun store in America and pay them the money . Easy answer.

This conversation was bound to happen I guess . Right or wrong these firearms are legally available to any law abiding citizen who wants to purchase them . I have several and when I do use them they are used for a fun day of target practice not to shoot unarmed movie goers.

Some of the guys that I work with were sitting around talking about this shooting and the conversation got to if it would be easier to do damage with guns or if another option would be more effective. For "normal" guys there were some scary crazy ideas that they came up with that would cause unreal carnage .

j/c...

good luck with that CCW stopping this guy. He had a bulletproof vest and a riot helmet on. You'd better be a pretty good shot.

What reason does anybody have to own an assault rifle? Yes, I know it's a Bill of Rights right, that's not what I asked. What reason does anyone have to own an assault rifle? I read some of the comments on the wal-mart link above. One guy was recommending FMJ rounds to use with it saying it was a "good starter assault rifle." Starter for what?

What reason does anyone have with a corvette, a 10 bedroom house, a $500 golf club etc.. ? You don't have to have a reason only the desire to own one .

Honestly, it was just a question. i don't understand what it's for at all. I mean, nobody uses an automatic rifle for hunting, right? I thought most people used handguns for home defense.

@Prp, magazine size is kind of a big deal I think when you start talking about this kind of gun vs that kind of gun.

Suicide bomber takes an awful lot more effort and knowhow. A gun is easy. An assault rifle is easier.

This guy didn't care about easy. Look what he's done to his apartment. Everybody is lucky he didn't blow that apartment building into a pile of rubble. People will use whatever they can get their hands on. If it's not guns, it's bombs, if it's not bombs, it's airplanes, and on and on and on. This isn't about guns, quit trying to make it about anything more than a very deranged man.

j/c

conspiracy theory....

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/1...eally-supports/


Sometime later this week, the UN will finally unveil its Arms Trade Treaty. The exact date the treaty will be released is a secret.

Russia, China, France -- with its new Socialist government -- Britain and the Obama administration are writing the treaty behind closed doors. Yet even if the final treaty is being kept under wraps, we still have a pretty good idea of some of the requirements that will be in it.

The group writing the treaty is not promising. Russia and Britain ban handguns and many other types of weapons. The possession of guns for self-defense is completely prohibited in China. The Obama administration is undoubtedly the most hostile administration to gun ownership in US history, with Obama having personally supported bans of handguns and semi-automatic weapons before becoming president. And remember the recent scandal where the Obama administration was caught allowing guns go to Mexican drug gangs, hoping it would help push for gun control laws.

The treaty seems unlikely to ever receive the two-thirds majority necessary to be ratified by the US Senate, but that doesn't mean it still won't have consequences for Americans. In other countries with parliamentary systems, even if the relatively conservative parties oppose approval, ratification is just a matter of time until a left-wing government takes power. Reduced private gun ownership around the world will surely lead to more pressure for gun control in our own country.

The treaty officially aims to prevent rebels and terrorist groups from getting hold of guns. The treaty claims that at least 250,000 people die each year from armed conflicts and that the vast majority of deaths arise from so-called "small arms" -- machine guns, rifles, and handguns.

Regulations of private ownership will supposedly prevent rebels and terrorist groups from getting ahold of guns. But governments, not private individuals, are the sources for these weapons. For example, the FARC fighting in Colombia get their guns from the Venezuelan government.

The most likely regulations to be pushed by the UN treaty are those that have been the favorites of American gun control advocates for years -- registration and licensing, micro-stamping ammunition, and restrictions on the private transfers of guns. Unfortunately, these measures have a long history of failure and primarily just inconvenience and disarm law-abiding gun owners.

Gun registration and licensing are pushed as a way to trace those who supply these illicit weapons. Yet, to see the problem with these regulations, one only needs to look at how ineffective they have been in solving crime. Canada just recently ended its long gun registry as it was a colossal waste of money.

Beginning in 1998, Canadians spent a whopping $2.7 billion on creating and running a registry for long guns -- in the US, the same amount per gun owner would come to $67 billion. For all that money, the registry was never credited with solving a single murder. Instead, it became an enormous waste of police officers' time, diverting their efforts from traditional policing activities.

Gun control advocates have long claimed registration is a safety issue. Their reasoning is straightforward: If a gun is left at a crime scene, and it was registered to the person who committed the crime, the registry will link it back to the criminal.

Unfortunately, it rarely works out this way. Criminals are seldom stupid enough to leave behind crime guns that are registered to themselves.

From 2003 to 2009, there were 4,257 homicides in Canada, 1,314 of which were committed with firearms. Data provided last fall by the Library of Parliament reveal that murder weapons were recovered in less than a third of the homicides with firearms. About three-quarters of the identified weapons were unregistered. Of the weapons that were registered, about half were registered to someone other than the person accused of the homicide.

In only 62 cases -- that is, nine per year, or about 1 percent of all homicides in Canada -- was the gun registered to the accused. Even in these cases, the registry did not appear to have played an important role in finding the killer. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Chiefs of Police have not yet provided a single example in which tracing was of more than peripheral importance in solving a case.

Note that the Canadian data provided above cover all guns, including handguns. It isn't just the long-gun registry -- there is also no evidence that Canada's handgun registry, started in 1934, has ever been important in solving a single homicide.

Micro-stamping involves putting unique codes on a bullet. The most commonly discussed method is to have a special etching that is on the tip of a firing pin, the piece of metal that strikes a bullet and sets off the explosion, that will leave a mark on the bullet casing. The notion then is that if the casing is left a crime scene, the bullet can be traced back to the owner of the gun. The problem is that firing pins can easily be replaced or altered.

As to restrictions on the private transfers of guns, the most common type of regulation involves background checks. Yet, whether one is talking about the Brady Act or the so-called gun show loophole, economists and criminologists who have looked at this simply don’t find evidence that such regulations reduce crime and may even increase it. Indeed, as the surges in murder rates after gun bans in the US and around the world show, such regulations don’t stop criminals from getting guns. A huge percentage of violent crime in the US is drug gang related, and just as those gangs can bring in the illegal drugs, they can bring in the weapons that they use to protect that valuable property.

The treaty will give Americans yet another insight into the types of gun control laws that President Obama really supports. The good news is that the US Senate will almost certainly prevent him from getting the treaty adopted here. Most rest of the world won’t be so lucky.

John R. Lott, Jr. is a FOXNews.com contributor. He is an economist and co-author of the just released “Debacle: Obama's War on Jobs and Growth and What We Can Do Now to Regain Our Future” (John Wiley & Sons, March 2012).

and...


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/1.../#ixzz21CGLiNsz

watch...

the police are going to say they couldn't track the guns because they didn't have them on the registry. etc and if they did they could have tracked it. or they are going to say the serial numbers were scratched off and if they had the impression thing on the fire-pin, it would make it easier to track.
or they are going to say if they had tighter gun control, they could have prevented this.

Similar statistics in US to those listed for Canada:

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

Total number of homicides
2010: 14,159
2009: 15,241
2008: 16,272
2007: 16,929
2006: 17,030

Number of homicides by firearm (2009, 2010 missing )
2008: 9,484 (58.3%)
2007: 10,129 (59.8%)
2006: 10,225 (60.0%)

http://www.gunpolicy.org/about

yeah but this is a good way to deflect attention and make sure no one fights against this being signed.

what political figure would stand up to this right after 71 people injured and so far 12 dead?

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/201...do-victims?lite

President Obama's speech about the shooting at an Aurora, Colo., movie theater at a campaign rally was "awkward," says NBC political director Chuck Todd

The news reported that the guns were bought legally at a pair of major outdoor stores. (Gander Mountain, and I can't remember the other)

The scary thing is that this guy's mother wasn't at all surprised at what he did.

hence the tighter gun control comments

Again though ..... if this guy wanted to hurt and kill people he could easily go into the grocery store and buy a bunch of Drano and other caustic substances, buy some gasoline and a bunch of matches, and so on.

Actually, he probably could have hurt and killed more people using those things than he did using his guns. Thank God he didn't.

how would he do that? Is he going to go around and cover everyone in gasoline then light them on fire? Run up and down the aisles with drano and a super-soaker? Is that faster than point-and-click with an assault rifle?

Probably right, YTown. Sad and deplorable. Saying some special ones tonight for the survivors, victims, and their loved ones. Horrific.

Anyone that thinks gun control laws could have or would have prevented this, or any future incident, is absolutely high as a kite and not connected to reality. Delusional.


If someone wants to kill a ton of people, they're going to kill a ton of people. You will NOT stop them. You likely won't even be able to make them alter their plans or choice of weapon.
People need to stop thinking that you can legislatively create some type of Utopian society. It simply isn't possible as long as Humans keep getting plugged into the equation.
All it does is needlessly restrict the 99.999% of the population that can and do act responsibly.

Rate of Homicide per 100,000 People (any method)

ChartIn the United Kingdom, the annual rate of homicide by any means per 100,000 population is

2009: 1.212
2008: 1.3
2007: 1.5
2006: 1.4412 4
2005: 1.53

Rate of Homicide per 100,000 People (any method)
ChartIn the United States, the annual rate of homicide by any means per 100,000 population is

2009: 4.965
2008: 5.35
2007: 5.61
2006: 5.70
2005: 5.66


Rate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 People

In the United Kingdom, the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population is

2009: 0.0316
2008: 0.05
2007: 0.04
2006: 0.08
2005: 0.07

Rate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 People
ChartIn the United States, the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population is

2009: 2.985
2008: 3.12
2007: 3.36
2006: 3.42
2005: 3.43

Or mix up the old Molotov cocktail. Mix in caustic agent like Drano, and you make it even worse. hell, seal then up tight with nails in then.

If someone wants to hurt people, they can always find a way.

This guy evidently boobie trapped hos apartment, and maybe his school as well. He was out to hurt a lot of people.

not surpising this is not the first time. Thought some people may find this interesting as it was 12 years ago.
Link

Volume 2, Issue 2, February, 2000

Global Gun Control--Disarming Citizens
© 1999 Discerning the Times Digest and NewsBytes
President Clinton threw down the gauntlet in his State of the Union address last month when he proclaimed, "Every state in this country already requires hunters and automobile drivers to have a license. I think they ought to do the same thing for handgun purchases.... I hope you’ll help me pass that in this Congress." The program being developed by the president would require gun purchasers to have a photo I.D. license to purchase handguns. The licensing requirement would eventually include all guns. Only federal licensed dealers could sell guns.

The Clinton program seems to be a direct response to new recommendations issued by the United Nations on August 19th last summer. Entitled "Report of the Group of Government Experts on Small Arms," the task group included U.S. representation. According to the November 22, 1999 issue of The New American, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told the UN Security Council Small Arms Ministerial on September 24th that, "the United States strongly supports these steps," and "welcome the important precedent which the UN has set." Albright concluded that the U.S. would work to "commit to finishing negotiations on firearms protocol to the UN Transnational Organized Crime Convention by the end of 2000."

The UN report makes 24 recommendations and many more suggestions that add up to a comprehensive program for global gun control, including:

"All small arms and light weapons which are not under legal civilian possession and which are not required for the purposes of national defense and internal security, should be collected and destroyed by States as expeditiously as possible.

"All States should ensure that they have in place adequate laws, regulations and administrative procedures to exercise effective control over the legal possession of small arms....

States are encouraged to integrate measures to control ammunition..."

U.S. Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) correctly identifies this effort as "an affront to our way of life and our constitutional government. Mixing gun control with internationalism is certain to result in an assault on American rights and liberties." The UN sponsored effort is a direct assault on the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The founders made it very clear that the Second Amendment was designed to give the right to bear arms to all citizens to keep the federal government from becoming tyrannical. In iron fisted global governance, however, gun control is essential to keep citizens from defending themselves.

As with most efforts to implement global governance, Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) have taken the lead role. In a September 24th speech, Secretary General Kofi Annan notes that, "The momentum for combating small arms proliferation has also come from civil society, which has been increasingly active on this issue. The establishment early this year of the International Action Network on Small Arms [IANSA] has helped to sharpen public focus on small arms, which has helped us gain the public support necessary for success." According to its website IANSA will "provide a transnational framework" for the mobilization of a broad citizen movement in favor of gun control. IANSA is made up of hundreds of otherwise unrelated NGOs.

Funding for IANSA comes largely from five agencies of small to medium-size governments: The Belgian Ministry for Development Cooperation; the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the United Kingdom Department for International Development; and the Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The funding of IANSA by governments raises the question of collusion. Thomas Mason, an attorney for the National Rifle Association (NRA), claims that, "A dynamic for worldwide gun control efforts has developed in the international arena over the past five years—an unholy alliance between NGOs, small to medium-size governments and the United Nation.... People have no idea that the United Nations is a totally closed process. There is no public records law or open meetings law. As a member of the public you do not have an automatic right to attend committee meetings. To get in the door you have to be an accredited NGO."

The UN General Assembly voted last December to convene "United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects" in June-July, 2001. The first of three preparatory conferences (Prepcoms) is scheduled to be held on the 28th of this month at the UN Headquarters in New York. As with almost every other global issue, the Prepcoms are designed to use NGOs, in this case IANSA, to force the nations into accepting UN control over guns. By the time the actual conference is held in 2001, a treaty will be presented giving the UN jurisdiction over gun possession and use.

Perhaps the greatest tragedy of gun control is its affront to common sense. Like almost all other "solutions" to international problems, gun control will only make gun violence worse. Numerous studies have shown that gun control increases violent crime. Every nation that has implemented strong gun control measures in the past few years has seen a dramatic jump in gun related violence. When criminals and governments believe they can rob, murder or rape people with impunity they do so. Perhaps NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre says it best, "What’s [gun control] going to solve? The criminals could care less. They’re not going to stand in line; they won’t comply with it." V mc

Thats why I am and have always been pro-gun. Thats why you should be able to purchase those types of weapons. Maybe we should just have every gun owner submit to a pyche test instead and hope they dont get through that instead. of course our gov will be in charge of that and find us all because we want to legally own guns.