<p>^^^^^I don’t think that gun control would have any effect on premeditated, carefully planned murders. It would decrease the spontaneous attacks, which I’m guessing are the large majority of murders/killings and are well worth decreasing.</p>
<p>^^^
I agree but I also don’t see any good reason why semi-automatic weapons are available to the average person. What good can ever come out of that? Nobody needs a semi for self protection.</p>
<p>I also think that the fact that one person can buy a multitude of weapons at various stores within a short period of time is disgraceful. Technology has been available for a very long time that would make it possible to red flag that kind of pattern. Once a pattern is identified, so is the person doing the buying. Then intervention is a possibility. Maybe not a guarantee but a possibility.</p>
<p>^All murders are well worth decreasing. Regular handguns will never be banned, just don’t see it given the current state of affair and the second amendment right. Assault rifle with huge amount of capacity should be controlled, I don’t see why it would take away in terms of hunting and self defence by having a lot less access to such a weapon.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with all of the above. I’ve never understood why assault weapons were legal. It seems the only purpose for them is to kill a lot of people quickly, something no one outside of law enforcement/military could even remotely need to consider.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[The</a> Aurora Movie Theatre Shooting and American Gun Culture : The New Yorker](<a href=“http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/07/aurora-movie-shooting-one-more-massacre.html]The”>One More Massacre | The New Yorker)</p>
<p>^^^^
Excellent.</p>
<p>Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Golden – killed 5 (4 middle school females and a teacher), wounded 10. Released from prison upon reaching age of 21.</p>
<p>Hopefully they got it out of their system while they were young.</p>
<p>Where did that happen 07Dad? Unbelievable!</p>
<p>Johnson and Golden–Arkansas Westside Middle School</p>
<p>Bomb killed 5 kids and 6 adults (Philadelphia) The bomber had legal access to fire arms but dropped the bomb from a helicopter.
[USATODAY.com</a> - 1985 bombing in Philadelphia still unsettled](<a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-05-11-philadelphia-bombing_x.htm]USATODAY.com”>http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-05-11-philadelphia-bombing_x.htm)</p>
<p>Happy Land arson killed 87. (NY)</p>
<p>We obviously don’t know a lot, but in terms of what can or can’t be done, it’s worth remembering that many women have died at the hands of men who had a documented history of abusing them, where the authorities were involved and restraining orders in place. We’re not even good at protecting people from those who have been violent before.</p>
<p>Re: addressing gun laws. The problem is that gun laws are defined by individual states. Some states have strict laws while others still live by the wild, wild west rules. NY has strict laws for possessing legal guns. Those that want a gun, but can’t legally get one will buy one off the street that was either stolen or brought across state lines from one of the more lenient states. </p>
<p>IMO–I’d like to see a National Gun Law put into place which would make the requirements for possessing guns the same for all states. I doubt it will ever happen.</p>
<p>I don’t think any type of gun control is going to stop a potential mass murderer from trying to carry out his/her plan.</p>
<p>mim- very good point. Almost all of the women in my shelter who have been harmed by guns have been harmed by legal guns. And almost every single one of the assailants has a criminal record which includes dv or child abuse/neglect.</p>
<p>I do not understand gun laws and I won’t pretend to. It just doesn’t seem like there’s a lot of common sense to them at least around here. When I first learned that abusers could get their weapons back, I was absolutely dumbfounded.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Attempts were made in the 110th Congress, United States House of Representatives (H.R. 226) and the United States Senate (S. 388), to enact legislation to compel complete reciprocity for concealed carry licenses. Some states have already adopted a “full faith and credit” policy treating out-of-state carry permits the same as driver’s license or marriage license without federal legislation mandating such a policy.</p>
<p>Opponents of national reciprocity have pointed out that this legislation would effectively require states with more restrictive standards of permit issuance (e.g., training courses, safety exams, “good cause” requirements, et al.) to honor permits from states with more liberal issuance policies. Supporters have pointed out that the same situation already occurs with marriage licenses, adoption decrees and other state documents under the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution. </p>
<p>It looks like the effort is to make a federal law that requires each state to honor every other state’s carry permits.</p>
<p>Word out now by pd is that he dyed his hair red and called himself “The Joker” when he was caught/turned himself in.</p>
<p>My 2 cents:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The gun control battle is long over. The Supreme Court has ruled that gun possession is an individual right under the 2nd Amendment. </p></li>
<li><p>The country is flooded with guns but gun deaths have not gone up, with 2 notable exceptions:</p></li>
<li><p>“stand your ground” laws have dramatically increased the number of killings and woundings.</p></li>
<li><p>fully automatic weapons have increased the number of dead and wounded in these attacks by crazy people.</p></li>
<li><p>“Open carry” laws continue to have no effect on gun violence. They aren’t associated with increased gun use and they have not reduced gun use. CO allows open carry except in Denver itself. To the extent deterrence is an argument for “open carry,” that appears to be bull.</p></li>
<li><p>The NRA has become the problem, not because it pushed against gun control but because it pushes to reduce any restrictions on gun ownership. You can be a felon and own a gun but not be able to vote. They want to make it easier, not harder for people with mental health problems to get weapons. As noted in other posts, they’re pushing to override what individual states want so the most lenient gun laws control. That is anti-states rights, which fascinates me because the right wing otherwise supports states rights. The NRA has also pushed both “stand your ground” laws and ending restrictions on automatic weapons, the two things that have in fact been shown to kill and wound people.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Just to clarify–in my previous post regarding the possibility of a National Gun control policy, I was trying to say is that states should share one set of nationally stringent gun laws rather than allow individual states to have to such a wide range of gun laws—some strict while others lenient.</p>
<p>In the end, no gun laws are going to stop a mad man (or woman) who is determined to kill.</p>
<p>Two thoughts.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>No mad man should have access to power that can kill/hurt so many people in minutes. Every man is capable of being mad.</p></li>
<li><p>No need to limit gun ownership, but every gun’s location needs to be monitored constantly, GPS or something.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>An additional point to my post #115 above:</p>
<p>The theatre has a “gun free” policy. I’ve been reading the response to this and it’s somewhat amazing: they blame the “gun free” policy and, somehow in at least a third of the notes, manage to blame the government. Cinemark owns the theatre. Cinemark is a public company located in Plano, TX. Here is my point: doesn’t Cinemark have the right to make its own rules and regulations? If it’s “private property”, then doesn’t the property owner have the right to allow or not allow certain conduct on the property? Isn’t that what property rights are all about? Isn’t that the conservative virtue? Apparently not when gun rights conflict. Then it’s the government’s fault for allowing private property owners to establish their own rules.</p>
<p>Lerg, what’s also been made VERY clear by experts is that EVEN IF someone had a gun, the gas would have made it very difficult to shoot and the armor he was wearing likely would have deflected most shots.</p>
<p>Of course. And we don’t know that people in the theatre didn’t have guns. All we know is they have a gun free zone policy. </p>
<p>I checked this out and the policy is posted but isn’t enforced by metal detectors or pat downs or security of any kind; it’s just a policy. I suspect the policy was established for liability reasons, as in “you allow people to bring guns into your theatre”. </p>
<p>I’ve found a few instances where people openly carrying guns were asked to put them in their cars before going into the movie. But if they had them under their coats, in a pocket, in a bag, no check. </p>
<p>So the big deal made by the gun rights crowd about “gun free zone” is bull. Given that it’s Colorado, odds are people had guns.</p>