Colorado shooting suspect had gun club membership rejected
July 22, 2012 at 9:34 am in Grand Forks Herald
Aurora shooting suspect James Holmes applied to join a Colorado gun range but never became a member after the owner became concerned over his “bizarre” message and behavior. Continue Reading
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
30 
41
According to tha T senator in WI hunters use those hundred round clips……If you need hundred round clips to hunt….Time to learn how to fish because you’re no hunter….
Hot debate. What do you think?
35 
32
100 round clips?? lets see looking at my rifle and the clip if it were modified to hold 100 rounds it would be about 4 1/2 feet long. Not likely. And report the story and make comments accurately the weapons were not automatic, try semi automatic. Also all the laws in the world would not have kept a PHD student with no record or even a speeding ticket from purchasing a gun. Sometimes people just loose their minds.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
36 
9
I don’t know much about guns, but that was basically the quote I read by some senator from WI defending guns with 100 round canister clips. He claimed hunters used them. I figure if you need to take so many shots to bring any animal down…Then you’re not really a hunter….That was just lame as hell to justify why someone other than military would need such a clip.
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
27
I know of know hunter that uses such a clip. I do see where looking a the capacity of a clip is legitimate, but remember the only thing that makes an “assault weapon” an assault weapon(there really is no such thing it is a term coined by gun control advocates) is simply its shape. Because it looks mean.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
3
It doesn’t matter how much perfume you use on a skunk…It still stinks…….Other than war, Either actual or one made up in someones head, there’s really no need for a 100 round clip. There’s reasons that things like bazookas and grenaqde launchers or tanks aren’t acceptable either….Guns yes, but not everything is ok…Especially crowd killers like 100 round clips on guns that can be made to be used in short bursts like that….
Like or Dislike:
8 
14
I dropped my NRA membership many years ago after continually receiving literature that opposed any sort of restrictions upon weapons at all. I own both handguns and rifles, but I see absolutely no reason to allow individual citizens the right to own a weapon that can fire 50+ rounds a minute.
Hot debate. What do you think?
38 
36
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
27 
37
The second amendment states that people have the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn’t state a specific type of arms TJ. To state that the constitution is explicit in its intentions means that our forefathers didn’t mean for us to be taxed in order for all to have health insurance either as that didn’t exist back then.
While I am deeply saddened at the tragedy that happened in Colorado, it would be worse to see even more liberties infringed upon.
To expand this… which is worse, the people who were murdered or the people whom Sandusky abused? Are you going to emasculate all males who are born in the US because of the potential to abuse children?
Hot debate. What do you think?
31 
20
I will be honest with you maverick…my husband has two AR17s. We have used them at the gun range. They are a distraction for other shooters. Have you ever been at the gun range when someone is firing one off? Say you just lined up your shot and someone a few lanes down from you starts firing off an AR15…it’s annoying. They serve no real purpose for the general public. Now regrading clips…we own 10, 20, and 30 round clips. For the life of me I can’t understand why anyone needs a 100 round clip. If you emptied the clip you would annihilate your intended target.
Hot debate. What do you think?
20 
26
I shot the real thing when I was in the military.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
2
Interesting maverick. My parents own a hunting/fishing lodge in Ontario. I run the restaurant/bar. I rotate two weeks here and two weeks in EGF with one of my sisters. I am only familiar with the sport side of owning firearms. So far we’ve never had anyone arrive here with an assault rifle to go deer hunting. No 100 hundred round clips either. They are for the gun range period…IMO.
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
19
I would agree with that.. However I am not going to infringe on a persons liberties because of someone else going nuts. Creating a law to ban the weapons is like a doctor giving you a pill to treat a symptom. It only helps in the short term but doesn’t treat the underlying issue.
Maybe we should be concentrating our efforts on why and less on trying to take away more rights given to us by the constitution and turning us into the new Soviet Russia.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
8
I will take your advice into consideration. Thank you for your opinion on this subject. Have a nice rest of the day Mav.
Like or Dislike:
13 
5
BTW TJ please don’t take anything that I said as a personal affront to you or your beliefs.
My personal stance on about everything in life is having the ability to choose, but also having to accept the responsibility for those choices.
Hope you and the Hubby are doing well.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
4
In Israel people keep their fully automatic weapons at home with them along with whatever large capacity clips they need. Here, police are there to deal with the aftermath, not prevent or stop crimes in the making.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
3
Maverick we have been friends a long time. No topic on the boards will change that. My husband is through with treatment. We can only hope and pray that his PSA tests come back negative from now on. I believe they will. You got to hope for the best. Thank you for asking.
Like or Dislike:
14 
5
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
11 
30
You got me here realist. I am simple minded afterall. I have fired off a muzzleloader before. It’s more work than fun in my opinion. Coon ‘n Crocket functions are enjoyable to attend but I like 22 rifles. My Henry Golden Boy .22 LR is my favorite.
Like or Dislike:
4 
11
TJ by definition an assault rifle is a rifle that is capable of firing fully-automatic. These weapons have already been restricted/banned as machine guns by federal law. An AR17 or an AR15 are semi-automatic rifles.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
2
They call it a revolution because it comes around again. The fore fathers had the sight to realize that when government became too big for itself the people would again revolt. The 2nd amendment is in place so citizens have the power to replace the government when the government does stand in the way of the constitution. Taking arms away from the citizens just empowers the government
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19 
3
tj, I like my aging Parker 20 gauge best. Nicest gun I’ve ever shot.
Like or Dislike:
10 
4
So was the first amendment. So using you logic that would mean that the right to free speech does not apply to radio, TV or the internet as they did not exist at the time?
Like or Dislike:
16 
3
Love that logic, Glen. OK, you win. I can totally see your point.
Like or Dislike:
8 
8
What’s with the crap eating grin on that parisite? They couldn’t find a walk of shame picture? That piture combined with what he did is just damn offensive….Hopefully in CO they have something more appropriate…
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
32 
2
That is his school photo from the University of Colorado. He dyed his hair red before the massacre.
Like or Dislike:
15 
2
That’s a classic sign of a psychotic breakdown. People will dye their hair, paint their faces or some other disfigurement because they are incapable of recognizing themselves and they attempt to take on another persona. I’d be shocked if this guy wasn’t certifiable which makes me wonder about people throwing the word “evil” out there. He’s probably in a fetal position in his cell, not talking, and generally unresponsive.
Like or Dislike:
16 
11
According to a couple of men that were released from jail after this person was arrested…the assailant in spitting at everybody and everything. He is in solitary confinement because the other inmates want to harm him. This is horrible to say…but I wish he would have had the guts to end his life. He had more than enough ammunition to do so. What a coward.
Like or Dislike:
17 
3
The term coward or brave does not apply to someone experiencing a psychotic break. They are not in touch with reality.
Like or Dislike:
12 
6
Can I use the word chicken Glen? If not how about fraidy-cat or scaredy-cat?
Like or Dislike:
8 
4
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
11 
24
That’s the quote I was referring to..Thanks
Like or Dislike:
10 
12
If they try to use the insanity defense for this idiot, I am going to be sick.
All this mayhem was premeditated.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
5
True but premeditated does not mean he is not insane.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
5
It’s actually pretty difficult to get out on that. If it wasn’t then just think of how many murders could actually be pled out that way. I don’t think that David Horriwitz (Son of Sam) was even allowed that even though he was getting his killing orders from the neighbors dog…Then again Hinkley did for trying to kill Regan so who knows? My guess is that because of the scope of this it will never fly. They might sentence him to life without parole at some highly secured institution, but I doubt there’s a chance in hell he’ll ever get out.
Remember that guy in Canada who went off his meds and then on a bus ride he had voices from God telling him to kill the young guy next to him? I read a while back that he’s been in aan institution since then and after being on his meds again he’s totally normal without any violent tendancies…….Now just imagine this young kid getting on meds that brings him back to normal……..Now he’s aware of what he did, and has a long life being locked up to deal with it. Some want the death penalty, but I think being locked up for life after returning to normal would be a much more painful sentence.
Like or Dislike:
14 
6
Too bad this guy won’t get a speedy trial and hanging.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
5
Ah…Good ol’ Judge Roy Bean: “Son…….First we’re going to give ya a fair trial…Then we’re gonna hang ya”
Like or Dislike:
11 
6
The second amendment was not penned to protect hunting. It was written to protect the citizen’s right to protect themselves from an oppressive government. The most prolific and efficient mass murderers in history have been governments. It is clear now that the COTUS is also a failed document because it has failed to keep our government in check, and we are well down the path of government sanctioned intimidation and murder. Murder existed when cavemen wielded clubs, and murder will exist long after all weapons are legally banned by those in power. Then we’ll just go back to clubs and rocks to defend ourselves against violence. Unfortunately we never hear how many lives were saved in the rare occasion when a shooter is confronted and/or stopped by an armed citizen, such as the Appalachian School of Law shooting, because there is comparatively low to no body count to events like this. So go ahead and disarm, people, and let your children live in chains.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
5
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
3 
20
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
4 
16
Good question. I guess we’ve come full circle. If the threat to society overrides the benefit then maybe a case can be made against assault rifles. We don’t get to carry around nuclear devices so we could be restricted in carrying around other weapons that have the potential to be worse than the problem they are used to guard against.
Like or Dislike:
8 
11
so we outlaw fast food and cars also?? more threat from them.
Like or Dislike:
12 
3
There are some who would argue that, but in my estimation, the extent of harm to society is difficult to pin down. On balance, cars are better than no cars with the caveat that laws exist to regulate their use. Food, on the other hand, has traditionaly been seen as a net positive with the negative borne only by the individual consumer, except for health care costs, of course. You’d have to redefine a whole lot of stuff to make the case for either one of these items to have grossly negative societal impact.
Like or Dislike:
2 
10
Glenn, weapons that are currently available to the civilian are merely a deterrent to state violence. What is easier for a despotic government to do; clandestinely herd docile, unarmed civilians into “internment facilities” for ease of control, or face the possibility of a bloody confrontation with armed citizens? Believe it or not, the USA has political prisoners as well, just ask Yorivon (sp?)Kahl or Wesley Snipes, to name a couple. Of course the average civilian is not going to have the level of weapons available to a professional military. Just as in revolutions past, the civilian populace generally did not own cannons and battleships. A truly despotic government would not care how much civilian blood is shed, as we have seen plenty of recently in Libya, Egypt, and Syria. So we could disarm here in America much like the British have done, and trust that our traditions and form of governmental checks and balances keeps us relatively free from state sponsored violence. However, if you have paid any attention to the increasing militarization of local police forces, and the increasing levels of violence used in raids against non violent “offenders” such as the Amish raw milk dealing cartels out in Pennsylvania, it might give you pause for concern. And I have to admit, disarmament in this day and age of lightning fast, real time communication might be possible since it is a little more difficult for the state to isolate and demonize certain factions that they find threatening. I am certainly open to suggestions Glenn, but at this point in time I do not have enough faith in the benevolence of any state organization to feel that my family is totally safe from violence.
Like or Dislike:
11 
8
Being “totally safe” is not a possibility. I think we assume a certain amount of risk by just getting out of bed in the morning. Personally, I can’t imagine being paranoid enough to worry about storm troopers marching into my house. I think I have a better chance of many other negative outcomes like getting a disease or having an accident to warrant spending my life worrying about having my home invaded. Being an optimist, I prefer to assume I’ll die in my sleep.
Like or Dislike:
4 
10
Realist, I don’t think it’s paranoid to take precautions or preparations for disruptive events. I am pretty sure my house won’t burn down, but I still have multiple smoke detectors and extinguishers throughout my property and carry fire insurance. I’m pretty sure I’ll have a job until I retire but I still keep my skills polished, my resume up to date, and resources put away for a rainy day. I’m pretty sure my home will never be invaded, but we still have locks on the doors and take precautions to defend ourselves. It’s in my nature to be an optimist as well, and I have little doubt that I’ll live out the rest of my life without ever having a violent confrontation. But it is in my nature to be prepared so that I can live a better life, if times get tough or even if they don’t. By the way, being safe from making stupid mistakes that lead to accidents, which are in your control, is much different than being safe from violence which is usually not totally in anyone’s control. I don’t “spend my life” in paranoia thinking about everything bad that could happen, but as a head of a household, it is my duty to give each eventuality some thought and decide how much time I should spend on a subject based on a the probability and severity of the hazard. If you live in your mother’s basement, you may not have to do this.
Like or Dislike:
10 
1
In my job I end up in some of the worse parts of major cities to make a delivery in places that probably should have been moved thirty years ago. Sure things can happen, but I’m vigilant and do have several means of no lethal (Unless I choose to use them as such) weapons. I could carry a gun, but I don’t simply because I don’t want the ease of making the wrong move much like the kid in FL who shot the younger kid out of fear…..
I’ve been in some very tight situations, but I’m still here, and nobody is dead as a result of any over reaction on my part to an intense situation. I still wont carry a gun because in the first place even though my job increases the odds for me to be in a situation where it might come in handy I still know those are very high odds. When I’m basically anywhere in the Midwest and especially here in Forks….Hell the odds are so high I’d be embarressed to admit I actually thought I needed to have one handy at all times. In the end that’s the real numbers…The odds of anything actually happening to you….There’s many parts of the country and world where the odds might be high, but definately not here…
Like or Dislike:
3 
4
tell that to the people in this state who are victims of murder, rape, assault and robbery over the last year in this state. If you choose not to carry that is your right and I would defend it. But that is entirely different from prohibiting someone the means to defend themselves. Why do states with the strongest gun control laws have the most crime? Why has the crime rate dropped significantly in states that passed shall issue carry laws?
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
I would have to see the other facts…..I mean if you want to play the cause and effect card then you could point to England and Japan that has extremely strict gun laws and the murder rate ranks lowest in the world….Cause and effect? Sounds pretty likely….
Like or Dislike:
1 
8
Besides Glenn…You’re doing the typical confuse the issue dance that’s basically been the number one defence set forth by the NRA. I’m not for a total ban, and the issue isn’t about a total ban. It’s about bringing some sanity into the issue about allowing guns for protection, hunting, or practice, and allowing everything that might make the guns military grade weapons with full auto and super huge clips. Items that have no real use outside the military.
Other extremely dangerous military armament isn’t allowed to the general public because of the extreme damage they can do. I sleep better knowing that there’s not a tank parked in some neighbors’ yard or maybe some other hand held launcher that can send some explosive divice my way if I didn’t get my lawn mowed quick enough and he thought it was upsetting the look of the block. That’s called sane policy. Most of us on this issue are only asking for the same kind of policies that will keep people from having guns that can be made into full automatic and use huge clips like he used.
To get back to your point about those who have had something bad happen to them and want to carry…I can conceed your point, but what about the same situation in CO. You’re legally carrying a gun for protection and sitting just a few roll away from the gun man. Suddenly he stands up and nobody knows what’s going on. He starts spraying the audience and you’re hit quick by the fast bullits coming out before it even occured to you what was going on. Wouldn’t it be better if that person had a limited amount of rounds in a semi automatic rather than a huge clip in a full auto? That’s the point you gun toters should even be behind because with limitations you might be able to get your shot off….With full auto…..It’s going to be totally based on luck that you’ll not get hit before you know what’s happening…
Like or Dislike:
1 
9
tundrabeast Military grade weapons are not legal to own in this country without very expensive permits, FBI involvement, and huge expenses. There are very few who own them in this country. Dont try to say AK47 are military weapons because they are not. The military does not use them, they do use weapons that LOOK similar but they function in a very different manner. So you are afraid of a shape and ignorant of the function it seems.
k47
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
Ok….If what he had wasn’t akin to what I would think of as military grade once it was full auto with 100 round clip, then what is it….”Fun Size?” When I say military grade weapons my intention is what you would use in war like what this person used. I’m not talking the actual military weapons. I really don’t know the actual difference, but it’s obvious that full auto with huge clips would pretty much ruin any meat you were hunting if that was the intention….Besides Glenn….You actually knew my intention….Stop trying to be cute…..You want to get a tank for your drive way too Glenn?….Sure sounds like you’d be right there if you could….
Like or Dislike:
1 
8
Not trying to be cute. If it was a fully automatic weapon possession is a felony. I believe it was a semi-auto weapon. Which is no different in function than many deer hunting rifles they only differ in shape. You do have a point on capacity of the clip and what is legal. Having that discussion does relate to this subject. If the discussion is restricted to that I believe it would be possible to pass a law. But it seems gun control advocates always want to go much further and will not accept less. The only part of the last “assault” weapons ban that made any sense was the part on clip capacity. The remainder of the ban sinply had to do with the SHAPE of the gun not the function. It was simply silly and the large majority of gun owners knew it. It was just feel good legislation for the gun ban crowd that infringed on the rights of others to own a gun of a certain shape.
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
I wonder how many of you who are so anti any suggestion to at least make it difficult to have anyone have such automated weapons with huge clips….Would be so cavalier if this finally happened close to home, and you knew somebody that was killed by a spray of bullits before they even realized what was going on? Think about that…This isn’t about gun control, but about keeping such massive fire power out of the hands of someone wanting to get the most bang for their buck…..In a crowded area
Unfortunately by the time some of you came around to the logic….Someone you cared for might have had to die first….
Like or Dislike:
1 
9
I am surprised this discussion has not included what could have been done to identify this man’s problems before this tragedy happened. None of know all the specifics of what led up to this and I know that he had no history of violence and no police record. However, I can bet there were people who saw the signs. Why don’t we ever have the discussion about what we can do when we see people’s mental health deteriorating?
Like or Dislike:
6 
2
A lot of mental health programs are too costly for most and funding is gutted so there’s not a lot available for those without a grand insurance plan or enough money to pay out of pocket now days. That’s too bad because in these trying times we could use more available help than ever……
Like or Dislike:
3 
6
True Tundra…I just want to know why this isn’t part of the discussion. Obviously someone who clicked dislike just wants to keep the focus on the gun control debate. But Holmes’ lack of mental wellness is obvious. Why is it ok to debate guns, but not talk about mental health?
Like or Dislike:
5 
3
it is very difficult to force a person in this country into mental health services if they do not want it. It is considered a violation of their civil rights. They must have a concrete plan that is realistic, the means to carry it out and a time when they will impliment. You have to be able to prove all this in a court and the person has the right to a defence lawyer. It is not impossible but it is difficult. There was a time when when a man could comit his wife indefinatly simply with his signature to a sanitarium. Laws were put in place to prevent this from happening, to protect the rights of those being locked up in psychiatric hospitals.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
tundra what part of it is a felony to posess an automatic weapon in the country dont you understand? How much more illegal can you make it?
Like or Dislike:
9 
1
Glen, I’m not implying that we should commit people instantly because they say some crazy things one time. Then half the politicians in the country would be committed! I’m talking about when people like teachers/professors see patterns. Not saying that they should go try to have them committed. I’m asking to start a conversation about how we HELP that person seek help BEFORE it gets to the breaking point. Just want this to be a part of the debate.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4
Melody I kind of like the idea of putting 1/2 the politicians in a psychiatric hospital and keeping them there.
I guess the question becomes how far are we willing to infringe on peoples rights. What is the ratio? How many people do we want to force into treatment to try to prevent the one who kills?? 100? 1000? 100,000? 1,000,000? Are we willing to pay the cost of treating 1 million people to prevent this? Considering how rare this is it would not shock me to find the number is 50,000,000. I dont know what the number is. Incidents like this are tragic to everyone involved including the perp. What is the cost of preventing everything, both in money and liberty??
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
I agree with you, Glen. We don’t want to infringe on people’s rights. I guess I am just trying to raise awareness, not promote committing people. What if people actually got involved when they knew that someone was struggling with mental health issues and they offered support in a non-judgmental way. Of course not everyone is going to be open to help, but I think having a different mind set about mental illness in this country could help at least a little. If someone offered support to someone on the edge and it was accepted, it would be worth it if it even saved just one life.
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
Melody – I understand what you’re saying, but I don’t think this could ever be implemented fairly. This is a very slippery slope when any person’s mental state is up for evaluation. Lord knows there are enough “experts” out there and even they would have differing opinions from one another. Bottom line, at the end of the day it will be the federal government making the decision – I don’t think any of us want that. I know I sure don’t.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
Obviously I don’t know a lot about guns since I’ve never really been interested enough in them to find out more. All I know is that somehow people can get guns that are supposed to be semi automatic and are supposed to have some mechanism to keep them from full automatic. I once watched a report whare someone showed how easy it was to bypass those safety measures to make it full automatic. Add to that the huge clips and we have a problem. I don’t know how it’s done, but since it can be done then different measures need to be taken to try to keep it from happening in the future.
I really don’t have a problem with guns for realistic purposes such as hunting and if need be personal protection…..I just think we need to be open to discussing what’s wrong with this no touch policy we’ve seem to be dictated to by the NRA when obviously there are areas that need some consideration so we don’t have something like this happen again. Somehow we can meet half way on these issues, but the issues do need to get discussed…..
Time after time when these things happen we hear that this isn’t the time that we should be talking about this and after it passes….The time never seems to come up. After 9/11 we knew without a doubt action had to be taken because lives were at risk, and even though the odds are high that an of us wil ever be bombed most have accepted the added security at airports and elsewhere. Yet after so many shootings like this we still get messages that this is off limits to even look at ways to prevent easy access to such weapons that can be retro fitted or whatever they do. That’s just nuts to say we shouldn’t even look at the issue…
Like or Dislike:
1 
8
Tundra any competent gunsmith can convert a semi-auto gun to a full automatic. They could also convert a single shot into a full automatic weapon. To do so is a Felony. If you are willing to commit a felony to make a gun into a full automatic weapon dont you think the person would be just as willing to purchase a full automatic weapon, a felony, on the black market? That is even easier that converting a gun to full automatic(which does require specialized skills and tools).
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
Right…Which is why they need to tighten back up certain restrictions on assualt guns and maybe purchasing huge quantities of ammo over the internet…….I don’t know what all needs to be done, but something needs to be done because to continue as is just isn’t working. I mean does it have to hit close to home before people who fight this finally agree that something has to be done?
This weekend like many summer weekends all over the place….There’s a big event where a lot of people will be gathering with friends to have a good time. What if the next mentally ill individual has already decided to target that event because there’s a huge crowd of families to shoot into and he has in his mind that will definately make his name famous for all time? It’s bad enough if his weapons can only get off a limited amount of rounds and does damage……Let’s find ways to at least make sure there’s only a limited amount of damage they can do instead of massive damage. We can’t stop it, but we can at least try to lower the impact….That’s all I’m saying….Does it have to hit home before people find it important enough to do something about? Or can we discuss prevention measures? Like rational beings?
Like or Dislike:
1 
6
You’re right Kodiak, I don’t want arm chair psychologists committing me. I’m not trying to say we should “implement” anything. I’m just saying that if we change our views of mental illness in general, maybe more people would be willing to offer support when they see a significant change in a person’s behavior.
A person doesn’t just overnight turn into a mass murderer. I doubt that Holmes had no significant behavior changes before this event. Obviously red flags were raised by his message on his voice mail. The gun club owner told his staff not to let him into the orientation. If our mind set about mental illness changed, maybe these people would be more willing to accept help before they get to the breaking point.
Just trying to get us to think beyond the guns since Holmes just as easily could’ve blown up that theater with a bomb.
Like or Dislike:
10 
0
tundrabeast so what law do you want to pass that will make an already banned and illegal weapon more illegal? And is that even possible. That is the point, if the weapon was full automatic it is already illegal.
So you are saying that if you ban my legal guns it will somehow make illegal weapons go away?
As I said a competent gunsmith can convert any modern gun into a full automatic so you are advocating to make all guns illegal because some mentally disturbed person may convert it to full auto and kill people with it?
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
I don’t know other than what I read. I read that perhaps stricter control over ordering massive amounts of ammo over the internet (But maybe allow more in person at gun shops). I read where in this situation this guy was denied entrence to a shooting range because the owner thought he sounded unstable. Perhaps if he had to buy through a gun shop someone there woulod have put up red flags too.
I don’t know what all…I only know what I read and there’s some measures that seem common sense without actually restricting people from the majoity of legal guns. Maybe bringing back a restriction of selling new assult type rifles (Not outlawing those already out, but assuring there’s an accounting if sold at gun shows, fles markets, or even in private). Maybe pain in the ass measures, but if it makes it more dificult for someone with a plan to stock pile, then let’s look at it. I’m just saying it’s time to look for solutions we all can LIVE with…..Because the status quo isn’t working….
Like or Dislike:
1 
5
Tundra the only thing I can tell you is you are speaking out of ignorance. Take the time to educate yourself both on weapon function and current gun laws then maybe you will be able to think critically about this issue. It may not change your anti gun stance but at least you will not look like a fool. Now get this THE ONLY THING THAT MAKES AN “ASSAULT WEAPON” DIFFERENT FROM 1000′S OF OTHER GUNS IN THIS COUNTRY IS ITS SHAPE. Not its function simply the shape. Looking at the capacity of the clip makes sense, but I also advise you a clip can be changed in less than a second if practiced at all. As for the purchase of ammunition, what is the number of rounds purchased that would stop this. I know people who will use over 1000 rounds in one day at the shooting range. Also once the law is passed what would prevent the person from purchasing an amount of ammunition just below the amount that triggers a report from multiple sites? Or even multiple stores? Remember many store, not just gun shops, sell ammunition, how many Wal-Marts are there? And the cost of recording and reporting every purchase would be so huge it would make the stimulus spending look like a drop in the bucket. We first need to enforce existing laws that is not being done. The federal government does not even follow existing gun laws. More laws and restrictions will not help. They will provide restrictions a law abiding citizens and do nothing to criminals or those who loose their minds. Kind of like requiring everyone to install an interlock breathelizer because some drive drunk. And driving drunk is rather common these incidents are very very rare, but everyone of them gets reported so it looks like it happens much more.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
I’ve already admitted several times here that I am not well informed about guns so yes I am ignorant about guns in general….I’ve also stated that I’m not anti-guns….Both which you’ve seemed to ignor. None the less you seem to just keep saying that we shouldn’t even consider finding out what we can attempt to fix the problems with such availability to weapons of what could be considered “Mass Destruction.” And not just with the weapons and ammo but in particular with those wanting to purchase such at all levels.
I used to be a knife collector and have a fairy nice but small collection. Eventually I came to the conclusion that I really don’t need more than about half a dozen good knives at any one time, and that the more expensive knives I seldom used anyway because I didn’t want them to look used. With knives I see a certain sork of art in their creation……I guess people who are really into guns probably see the same in certain guns also. So I can appreciate why some collectors want a variety of guns…..And that’s fine……But then there’s this guy who is allowed to sneak in under the wire because there’s not enough measures to detect the nut jobs from the real gun collectors. Something isn’t working, and a person doesn’t have to know a lot about guns to realize that.
Hell….I just hear someone make a comparison to cold medicine we used to just pick up and bring to the counter to buy and walk out the store. Look at the loops we go through for that to try to make it more difficult for meth labs to make their product. Yet when it comes to guns and ammo we’re supposed to just say “Nothing can be done to help prevent this so lets just ignore it?” That just doesn’t hold water…
Like or Dislike:
1 
4
Cold medicine is not protected by our Constitution. So we require everyone to take an MMPI to be able to own a gun… seems like a violation of the Constitution to me. One of the things we need to understand it bad things happen in this world no matter what we do. Look at that nut job is Sweden last year. He was not supposed to have any guns at all. How much liberty and freedom are we willing to give up to try to stop every bad thing there is? What is the limit? As I said a discussion on limits for clip capacity does make sense to me. But banning a weapon based on its shape or if it has a bayonet lug is just crazy. I have not heard of a civilian mass bayoneting in this country ever, I am sure there were incidents in the military during the civil war.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
Hey…You want to take the constitution to the oimit? Then why not consider all arms legal for everyone….Including explosives? We have reasons why we don’t consider launchers, tanks, submarines with torpedos, Jets with missiles, and such to be part of civilian arsenal.
If you really wanted to have protection against the government should they try to run the country by an iron fist, then accordingly those are the real arms you’ll need to have a sliver of a chance to fight against it. But we don’t allow that because…..IT WOULD BE BAT CRAP CRAZY TO ALLOW JUST ANYONE TO HAVE SUCH WEAPONS.
It’s not about shape, it’s about destruction ability….We’ve learned to live within the constitution by not allowing everything considered a weapon to be a right to own by civillians. If the constitution can survive those restrictions then it surely can survive having easy availability to assult weapons that can do massive harm. I am talking about “Easy Availability”
Next time you’re in public with someone you care about look around and ask yourself….”Do I really want some of these people to have easy access to something that could rip through people here in seconds? Unfortunately Glenn I really doubt you’ll ever see the logic unless it does hit that close to home for you….Hopefully it wont….But the fact that it could really should give you cause to pause…
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
easy access? you do realize you cant just go purchase a gun in the store… there is a FBI criminal background check required at the point of sale before purchase. Now if you are talking about banning all semi auto guns then quit playing games talking about assault weapons. It is not the guns that are the problem. Everyone in Switzerland is required to own a gun they dont run around shooting each other. We live in a country that has a culture of violence. Look at our entertainment, movies, video games, sports, all violent. That you can not change very easy. It would take generations if it is even possible to force the change. It is simply not possible to remove all the dangers in life.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
going to get me on the specifics every time, because I’m not aware of the exact types…..
The hell with it….No sense going round and round….I know there’s a problem that solutions should be looked in to. And like figuring what to do about a house on fire, we don’t first blow up the house…..Which is what you seem to think I’m looking for in some solution. I’m looking for some rational thinking that will hopefully make situations like this and the many others that have happened over the past several years help to make sick people from doing so much damage……Maybe I don’t know much about guns in particular….But then again for someone who does…I yet to hear any suggestions about the situation you might have. What would you think of as a possible solution or solutions to both the weapons, and the people who might get their hands on them? There must be some thoughts that still make it possible to do something without the constitution encroachment you’re concerned about…..
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
I guess I’ve been mixing your name with the two “N” Glen….Didn’t notice it until now…
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
Not the first time for that. lol
But we are different people, Glen and Glenn. I have no idea who he is or where he is from.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1