As many as 10 dead in shooting at Batman premiere in Denver: reports

[beagle9]

That is true, which is why I don't truly want Americans to ban guns entirely. It punishes those who are responsible. What I would like to see, though, is tougher gun laws. Those who are responsible shouldn't have an issue with this - it is important to do everything you can to prevent firearms from ending up in the wrong hands.

Better "Gun" laws yes maybe, but even better would be to have better safe gun technology implemented into the weapons. This area hasn't been explored enough (IMHO) and yet it should be a main priority given the situations and the study of these situations..

As long as people maintain that the 2nd amendment gives them the right to own a gun which can be used against another human being at any time and place of their choosing safety technology becomes null and void.

No it doesn't, so think about what you just said and maybe go back and regroup, because that made no sense at all in what you just said in regards to implementing safe technology into guns..

 

[mudwhistle]

How do you do that without infringing on the rights of innocent people? It's already illegal to own a firearm if you're a convicted felon or have a sufficient psychiatric history. The guy in the theater shooting had no prior criminal or psychiatric history. There's already a national database where a gun store can run an instant background check on you. This guy passed it because he had a clean record with no priors.

The only thing more that can be done is to make thought-crime illegal.

very simple .....BAN GUNS TO THE ORDINARY POPULATION,AND THIS HORRIFIC SITUATION WILL IN TIME BECOME A THING OF THE PAST.....I agree with Noomi completely AND SO SHOULD YOU,BUT IT TAKES A BACKBONE,ESPECIALLY IN THE US.

Nope you are wrong big time, because it would be better to create smart technology that places timers and tracking on these weapons (all of them). By placing timers on these weapons, it would be one part of the safety ideas that are needed so desperately in controlling the situations at large now in the country, and tracking would be another. In my opinion, internal timers can be placed on board these semi-automatic weapons, that would allow them to only shoot two rounds, before a one minute timer delay would disable the firing mechanism for one minute, and then once the one minute is up, the weapon becomes functional again for the next two rounds to be fired. A function key could be allowed to be held by gun ranges only, that could be placed into the timer to increase the rounds to 10 rounds before the timer would again activate under gun range conditions. Otherwise under a highly strict enviroment, and by way of a key, the weapons could be made functional for the range in which the gun owner would be at that day wanting to shoot. When the owner is done shooting at the range, the weapon would be returned to it's two round one minute timer setting by the range officer.

The purpose of the on board timer would be to give people the time to subdue or jump a would be killer, if he were to decide to go about making plans for a mass shooting and then acting upon those plans, where as we would then have weapons that have new technology on board, in which would quickly force the person into a less likely alternative for killing people in large numbers by way of a semi-automatic weapon or weapons to be carried such as with this AR-15 and drum clip etc.

Now handguns may have to have a more strict setting in the timer, because they can be carried and concealed far better, and can have the same affect in a close range senario as what we had with the theater setting also. Handguns as in automatic glocks, 9.mm's etc. would have two rounds then a five minute setting with a noise detection on board as well, in which would disable the weapon being fired for five minutes (cool off period), as well as anyother handgun being concealed next to it, all due to the noise safety on board detection mechanism. So lets say that a gunmen were to grab another handgun in between the one he has already fired, that has been disabled by the timer in which he had shot the first two rounds from, then the gun grabbed next would be also under the timer firing mechanism disabler, and this all due to the on board noise detection system in which disabled it by a timer as well when heard the shot from the first gun fired....Now we have sucessfully adressed the situation with smart technology, and rendered the likelyhood of guns being used in mass killings to zero, and this by having such technology implemented in all weapons of this sort by government mandate and/or law. Police and military weapons would not be subjected to this (((unless))) for internal reasons, it could be studied enough to understand the ramifications of timers also being used on their weapons as well while in country. The only reason this would be studied or considered, is due to the belief that some military and/or police weapons could somehow end up in the hands of criminals without any restrictions on board back out on the streets.

In summary: A plotter would have to plan to carry more weapons because of this technology being implemented in all weapons that are semi-automatic, thus making him more visable and vulnerable to detection. Tracking devices would give the exact location of the shooter instantly, once the gun is reported to have fired the first round, thus instantly giving the location to law enforcement, in which either were to be reported by a citizen or by law enforcement themselves when keying in the code in which was indicated by a flag up on a super computer designed to hold all the trackers and their weapons information specific to the on board tracker, and this in the case of a shooting occuring at any location that a shot or shots would have been fired from any location.

Maybe you should stick to demanding Mitt Romney's tax returns.

 

[emptystep]

It was very clear. You choose to put your faith in government to keep you safe.

An adage comes to mind. Something about those that wish to give up liberty for safety deserve neither.

Do you stand outside your house with a bucket of water and walk your mail to its destination?

emptystep, is more like empty head.

ABOUT DAMN TIME!!! First heard that in the 2004 election!

 

[emptystep]

It was very clear. You choose to put your faith in government to keep you safe.

An adage comes to mind. Something about those that wish to give up liberty for safety deserve neither.

Do you stand outside your house with a bucket of water and walk your mail to its destination?

Bring it in from the left field bleachers.

Firemen are socialists?

 

[Katzndogz]

I used to trust the government and I didn't have any guns at all. Now the government is deliberately releasing known violent criminals out of prison and I don't trust the government any more. I saw the government approve of a couple of black guys with bats threatening people who wanted to vote. The government is no longer trustworthy enough to hand over my person safety.

 

[emptystep]

Maybe you should stick to demanding Mitt Romney's tax returns.

He's right. Where are those tax returns anyway?

Why do you have Harry Potter surrounding SF patches. I could put up my own SF patches but does that make me cooler?

 

[beagle9]

very simple .....BAN GUNS TO THE ORDINARY POPULATION,AND THIS HORRIFIC SITUATION WILL IN TIME BECOME A THING OF THE PAST.....I agree with Noomi completely AND SO SHOULD YOU,BUT IT TAKES A BACKBONE,ESPECIALLY IN THE US.

Nope you are wrong big time, because it would be better to create smart technology that places timers and tracking on these weapons (all of them). By placing timers on these weapons, it would be one part of the safety ideas that are needed so desperately in controlling the situations at large now in the country, and tracking would be another. In my opinion, internal timers can be placed on board these semi-automatic weapons, that would allow them to only shoot two rounds, before a one minute timer delay would disable the firing mechanism for one minute, and then once the one minute is up, the weapon becomes functional again for the next two rounds to be fired. A function key could be allowed to be held by gun ranges only, that could be placed into the timer to increase the rounds to 10 rounds before the timer would again activate under gun range conditions. Otherwise under a highly strict enviroment, and by way of a key, the weapons could be made functional for the range in which the gun owner would be at that day wanting to shoot. When the owner is done shooting at the range, the weapon would be returned to it's two round one minute timer setting by the range officer.

The purpose of the on board timer would be to give people the time to subdue or jump a would be killer, if he were to decide to go about making plans for a mass shooting and then acting upon those plans, where as we would then have weapons that have new technology on board, in which would quickly force the person into a less likely alternative for killing people in large numbers by way of a semi-automatic weapon or weapons to be carried such as with this AR-15 and drum clip etc.

Now handguns may have to have a more strict setting in the timer, because they can be carried and concealed far better, and can have the same affect in a close range senario as what we had with the theater setting also. Handguns as in automatic glocks, 9.mm's etc. would have two rounds then a five minute setting with a noise detection on board as well, in which would disable the weapon being fired for five minutes (cool off period), as well as anyother handgun being concealed next to it, all due to the noise safety on board detection mechanism. So lets say that a gunmen were to grab another handgun in between the one he has already fired, that has been disabled by the timer in which he had shot the first two rounds from, then the gun grabbed next would be also under the timer firing mechanism disabler, and this all due to the on board noise detection system in which disabled it by a timer as well when heard the shot from the first gun fired....Now we have sucessfully adressed the situation with smart technology, and rendered the likelyhood of guns being used in mass killings to zero, and this by having such technology implemented in all weapons of this sort by government mandate and/or law. Police and military weapons would not be subjected to this (((unless))) for internal reasons, it could be studied enough to understand the ramifications of timers also being used on their weapons as well while in country. The only reason this would be studied or considered, is due to the belief that some military and/or police weapons could somehow end up in the hands of criminals without any restrictions on board back out on the streets.

In summary: A plotter would have to plan to carry more weapons because of this technology being implemented in all weapons that are semi-automatic, thus making him more visable and vulnerable to detection. Tracking devices would give the exact location of the shooter instantly, once the gun is reported to have fired the first round, thus instantly giving the location to law enforcement, in which either were to be reported by a citizen or by law enforcement themselves when keying in the code in which was indicated by a flag up on a super computer designed to hold all the trackers and their weapons information specific to the on board tracker, and this in the case of a shooting occuring at any location that a shot or shots would have been fired from any location.

Maybe you should stick to demanding Mitt Romney's tax returns.

Maybe you should point out where I am wrong, instead of making a doofus out of yourself with statements like that...

 

[beagle9]

I used to trust the government and I didn't have any guns at all. Now the government is deliberately releasing known violent criminals out of prison and I don't trust the government any more. I saw the government approve of a couple of black guys with bats threatening people who wanted to vote. The government is no longer trustworthy enough to hand over my person safety.

Yes, and this is why the nation needs a change this election... Obama was being elected when this happened, so there wasn't really much he could do about that at the time of the voting, but he sure could have adressed it once he was the President, but he just didn't..

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I used to trust the government and I didn't have any guns at all. Now the government is deliberately releasing known violent criminals out of prison and I don't trust the government any more. I saw the government approve of a couple of black guys with bats threatening people who wanted to vote. The government is no longer trustworthy enough to hand over my person safety.

Yes, and this is why the nation needs a change this election... Obama was being elected when this happened, so there wasn't really much he could do about that at the time of the voting, but he sure could have adressed it once he was the President, but he just didn't..

While we wait for the change I stick with me defending myself as I choose too.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Would this have happened if guns were banned in the US?

If guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns...so, yes.

this person was hardly an outlaw. he was a med-student. the answer is probably, no: this would not have happened if guns were illegal.

All the explosives he has wired up in his apartment are legal?

 

[Papageorgio]

Prostitution is against the law, marijuana is against the law, cocaine is against the law, some counties ban alcohol. I bet you I can find all of it and get supplies of it.

Banning guns would just mean the shooter would have gotten his guns differently or used bombs which is what he had knowledge of.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That is true, which is why I don't truly want Americans to ban guns entirely. It punishes those who are responsible. What I would like to see, though, is tougher gun laws. Those who are responsible shouldn't have an issue with this - it is important to do everything you can to prevent firearms from ending up in the wrong hands.

Let me guess, you think we should prevent medical students with really good grades, no history of mental illness, and no criminal history from getting guns because they might shoot up a theater some day. This is why people like you shouldn't comment on complex subjects, you don't think before you post.

there is no reason to have guns anymore. their recreational use is not justified when this is happening. that recreation should be sacrificed for the greater good of the people, but gun owners are selfish and will not relinquish this "activity," and that's all it is: a hunting trip, or a trip to the range. I won't deny that a certain amount of family bonding is inherent in such activities, but there are other ways to bond, and if this is the only way, then we are simply not willing to be a little more creative or try something else. Compare that marginal benefit of this recreational use to the murderous rampages as we have again seen. The only choice at this point is to drop guns altogether, because simply as a cost/benefit analysis, the costs are simply too high. Gun violence in this country has been a problem for far too long, especially in gang neighborhoods, yet rural folks need to go on hunting trips with their sons and daughters, so urban youth must die. It's so selfish. Nothing more. As far as the idea of bearing arms to protect against the government: if they actually moved on us, a few citizens in their homes would not be a problem for the american army. It would be a minor distraction.

Self defense is not a recreational use of guns. What you don't seem to understand is that guns save lives more often than they take them. I will admit that it is highly unlikely anyone who is not combat trained would have been able to react to, and take down, Holmes when he entered the theater, but it is not inconceivable that Aurora Colorado is home to a few vets. This guy was not a typical person, he was a med student, and really smart. He wired his apartment with explosives, those are illegal, and take time to manufacture.

Tell me something, how do you figure that 10 deaths stack up against the fact that guns being in the hands of every day citizens saves hundreds of lives every year? Explain what cost benefit analysis you actually used that causes that to make sense.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Would this have happened if guns were banned in the US?

If guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns...so, yes.

Except you never hear about this sort of thing in Germany, or Japan, or the UK where gun ownership is a lot more restricted.

Two things we are going to find out in the next couple of days.

1) Nearly everyone in James Holmes life knew he was seriously disturbed.

2) Despite that he was able to get four guns and lots of ammo with relative ease.

Nothing to see here.

Oh, by the way, I'm not some hippy who hates guns. I was in the army for 11 years, and probably handled more weapons than most of you have. But the idea that someone like HOlmes should be able to get a gun with such ease should make us all worry.

But the only time you guys worry about someone having guns they shouldn't have is if it's a mexican drug dealer and somehow you can blame Obama if you bend your brain back far enough.

Correction, you never hear about it.

I however, do. The reason you don't is you get your news from people who believe that banning guns stops this type of thing. I get mine from people that actually think.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7936817.stm

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How a civilian can buy a semi automatic legally, and 6000 rounds defies logic.
16000 gun related deaths in USA compared to 20 a year in Japan where guns are banned.

The fewer the guns, the less the violence.

It's not impossible to control guns - but Americans are determined to protect handgun freedoms.

The pro-gun types will say it is not the presence or absence of guns that matters.. that is true up to a point, it's how guns are treated, which fundamentally starts with how seriously the culture views gun control.

Do you know what semi-automatic means?

 

[beagle9]

Election year? No appetite for gun-law reform? That's a shame.

It's a very bad joke to kill innocent people or to be a governor whose government allows anyone to get so much firepower for their own personal unsupervised use and allows that unnecessary fire-power to be used against defenceless citizens.

Photoshop: Compare the Colorado jokers

I actually support the 2nd amendment to the constitution of the USA - the right bear arms as part of a well-regulated militia.

The whole "well-regulated militia" part gets forgotten by the NRA and gun-rights nuts who want to take a good idea too far to the point that individuals can have way more firepower than they ever need for self-defence or to defend their own family in their own home.

To my mind, "well-regulated" would mean regulating against personal automatic weapons. Automatic weapons should be limited to organised police or community defence militia forces on duty. I would support say Church or University or town militias - who would be required to be insured to pay out compensation if any of their guns got misused.

For home defence, single shot shotguns or bolt-action hunting rifles is plenty. No-one needs a personal automatic or semi-automatic assault rifle at home. Such weapons should be held in militia arsenals and only used when militia personnel are on supervised duty.

I don't have all the details sorted out but I just think the laws are too slack right now and it's not what the 2nd amendment calls for.

And for whence does that well regulated militia come from, you know the one that is suppose to keep government in check when it decides to become tyrannical and oppressive over and above the freedom and liberty of the citizens of this United States ? Could the government adress it's own problems from within, otherwise to point a gun to it's own head in order to straighten itself back out once over the edge to far ? The citizens have held the key to government staying in check thus far in various ways aforded to them by the constitution, and by laws in which the President swears by, and takes and oath to up hold, because in the freedom that the good citizens have in this nation, it doesn't allow the government to keep the citizens all nice and cozy into a little controlled box in which it may want to keep them if decides to go rogue finally.

Keeping government scratching it's head just a little bit is best for the good citizens of this nation, but the government flooding the pool with many concocketed potions coming in from all directions now, is forcing the American swimmers to one side of the pool, and ultimately into the box in which it wants them all into finally...

How does America keep the other nuclear nations at bay ? It is by keeping a healthy amount of weapons and technology available as a counter found as just one aspect of that situation, and it does this in order to keep it all on an even keel in the world. It's the same with us, where as if the government gets us anymore vulnerable than we already are, and then it is found that it has plans for this nation that no longer represents the will of the nation, then it can implement such plans without resistance at all coming from we the people if were not to agree with them. Our voting booth has been our best weapon to keep government in check so far in this nation, but what happens when that is no longer the case ? Who is the militia being spoken about in those prophetic words written so long ago?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That is true, which is why I don't truly want Americans to ban guns entirely. It punishes those who are responsible. What I would like to see, though, is tougher gun laws. Those who are responsible shouldn't have an issue with this - it is important to do everything you can to prevent firearms from ending up in the wrong hands.

Here is your first misconception, what you want does not matter. You do not have any valid opinion on the laws in the united states.

We get rid of one knuckle dragger on SCOTUS. Heller is overturned. We can introduce gun laws with teeth.

Sounds like a plan to me.

Strange.

Since Heller crime and murder rates have gone down, but you want to overturn something that has resulted in more people living longer lives.

At least we know you aren't smart.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't know what else could be done. But SOMETHING has to be done to prevent these shootings. One mass shooting is one too many.

How about less gun free zones, and everybody not panic over the sight of seeing a gun in public.

How about making sure people aren't crazy before they buy guns?

How about making sure people aren't stupid before they post?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That is true, which is why I don't truly want Americans to ban guns entirely. It punishes those who are responsible. What I would like to see, though, is tougher gun laws. Those who are responsible shouldn't have an issue with this - it is important to do everything you can to prevent firearms from ending up in the wrong hands.

How do you do that without infringing on the rights of innocent people? It's already illegal to own a firearm if you're a convicted felon or have a sufficient psychiatric history. The guy in the theater shooting had no prior criminal or psychiatric history. There's already a national database where a gun store can run an instant background check on you. This guy passed it because he had a clean record with no priors.

The only thing more that can be done is to make thought-crime illegal.

Only talking about our country, it's easy to own a gun.
You have to do a short lesson on gun safety - about 2 hours as I recall.
Then you're free to go.
You have to show your license whenever you buy a gun or ammunition.

There is no register of how many or what guns you own - a law that was changed about 25 years ago.
However, if you want to own a handgun or an automatic (and I think military style firearms as well) then you need to register as a collector which imposes a whole heap of extra checks and responsibilities.

Carrying a weapon in a public place without good cause is an offence.
Carrying a weapon of any sort for self-defence is an offence.
Using or presenting a gun for self defence in any situation will result in a trial.

So, we don't consider our liberties are curtailed because we can own a gun for sporting reasons, which is the only real reason that I can think of for owning one in New Zealand.

It is illegal to defend yourself in New Zealand? If someone breaks into your home you are required to simply let them kill you and rape your wife? And you think gun laws in the US are stupid?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How a civilian can buy a semi automatic legally, and 6000 rounds defies logic.
16000 gun related deaths in USA compared to 20 a year in Japan where guns are banned.

The fewer the guns, the less the violence.

It's not impossible to control guns - but Americans are determined to protect handgun freedoms.

The pro-gun types will say it is not the presence or absence of guns that matters.. that is true up to a point, it's how guns are treated, which fundamentally starts with how seriously the culture views gun control.

It's not impossible to control guns - but Americans are determined to protect handgun freedoms.

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

Somehow, I don't think the Founding Slaveowners had James HOlmes buying an AR-15 and 3000 rounds of 5.56 in mind when they said, "well-regulated militia".

I think they thought of a militia with an organizational charts and ranks and regulations and such, so they didn't have the crazy person shooting stuff up...

Now, if they said, "The right to own guns to compensate for tiny penises shall not be infringed", you might actually have an argument there.

Somehow, I think they had assholes like you in mind when they wrote the 1st Amendment.

 

[beagle9]

Let me guess, you think we should prevent medical students with really good grades, no history of mental illness, and no criminal history from getting guns because they might shoot up a theater some day. This is why people like you shouldn't comment on complex subjects, you don't think before you post.

there is no reason to have guns anymore. their recreational use is not justified when this is happening. that recreation should be sacrificed for the greater good of the people, but gun owners are selfish and will not relinquish this "activity," and that's all it is: a hunting trip, or a trip to the range. I won't deny that a certain amount of family bonding is inherent in such activities, but there are other ways to bond, and if this is the only way, then we are simply not willing to be a little more creative or try something else. Compare that marginal benefit of this recreational use to the murderous rampages as we have again seen. The only choice at this point is to drop guns altogether, because simply as a cost/benefit analysis, the costs are simply too high. Gun violence in this country has been a problem for far too long, especially in gang neighborhoods, yet rural folks need to go on hunting trips with their sons and daughters, so urban youth must die. It's so selfish. Nothing more. As far as the idea of bearing arms to protect against the government: if they actually moved on us, a few citizens in their homes would not be a problem for the american army. It would be a minor distraction.

Self defense is not a recreational use of guns. What you don't seem to understand is that guns save lives more often than they take them. I will admit that it is highly unlikely anyone who is not combat trained would have been able to react to, and take down, Holmes when he entered the theater, but it is not inconceivable that Aurora Colorado is home to a few vets. This guy was not a typical person, he was a med student, and really smart. He wired his apartment with explosives, those are illegal, and take time to manufacture.

Tell me something, how do you figure that 10 deaths stack up against the fact that guns being in the hands of every day citizens saves hundreds of lives every year? Explain what cost benefit analysis you actually used that causes that to make sense.

Not comparing anything with anything, but rather adressing the ways in which to help stop a mass killing (yes the wounded are also included in the numbers as well, so it best not to try and water down the numbers with just ten killed), from being so efficient and precise by a radical killer in these ways.

To not explore ways to stop this without banning weapons or guns from responsible citizens as being the key always, is to place ones head in the sand until the day comes when the liberals finally reach their fictional blissful state of government being in total control, in which they think is somehow a good thing, in which they hope for someday to come out of all of this.