Shooting erupts at Colorado supermarket, bloodied man shown in handcuffs

[polpott]

1 minute ago, Thomas J said:

So "it is the people" not the presence of firearms that contributes to the death. 

So don't put guns in the hands of the people. Simples!

[Surelynot]

1 minute ago, Thomas J said:

So "it is the people" not the presence of firearms that contributes to the death.  

Good points, well made, but at the end of the day the equations are...........

 

People + Guns= Deaths

 

People - Guns= Less Deaths

 

Can't take people away, but you can take guns away.....

[Yellowtail]

10 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Yellowtail even the 40,000 figure is a misleading statistic.  62% of those are suicides.  Only 35% are homicide and the vast majority of those are drug gang related with handguns. 

https://health.ucdavis.edu/what-you-can-do/facts.html

 

I understand that, but it does show to anyone (not ideologically blinded) how little impact banning AR-15s will have.

 

The end game of the left is confiscation of all guns. Of course there will be exceptions so the rich can continue to have armed bodyguards... 

[Surelynot]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

The end game of the left is confiscation of all guns.

Yes...totally....100%...spot on.....way to go....

[Sujo]

2 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

Good points, well made, but at the end of the day the equations are...........

 

People + Guns= Deaths

 

People - Guns= Less Deaths

 

Can't take people away, but you can take guns away.....

Destroy every gun. Death penalty for anyone found with one.

 

Would change things very quickly and police would be less inclined to be scared and shoot you at a traffic stop.

[Thomas J]

1 hour ago, Walker88 said:

Neither Madison nor Jefferson could have imagined RPG-7s, SAM-7s, bazookas or AR-15 style weapons, but since the 2nd was penned,

 No and they could not have envisioned the internet but does that change the right to free speech.  The 14th amendment says that any person "born under the jurisdiction" of the USA that is born on USA soil is a USA citizen.  This was one of 3 post civil war amendments dealing with slavery meant to guarantee that slaves and their children would be citizens.  There was no contemplation of it applying to illegal immigrants since at that time there was no "immigration" law.  Yet somehow despite the clear intent of those writing the law it still applies today.

Back when the second amendment was penned there were no laws governing firearms ownership.  Any person, of any age, without any background check, etc could own a gun.  Now I am "for" any and all laws that will "prevent" criminals, and those wishing to do harm to others from possessing a firearm.  With that said, I can't imagine how you would have a system that would screen those wanting to do harm from other citizens.  The alternative then is to ban all firearms and that I believe would only lead to the same thing experienced with drugs and during prohibition with alcohol.  A black market where those who by their very nature are those you wish not to have guns being the only ones with them. 

[Surelynot]

Just now, Sujo said:

Destroy every gun. Death penalty for anyone found with one.

 

Would change things very quickly and police would be less inclined to be scared and shoot you at a traffic stop.

Japan to a T....although they went for 10 years........ no questions asked.

[Sujo]

1 minute ago, Surelynot said:

Yes...totally....100%...spot on.....way to go....

Some would strangely prefer to live in a society with guns instead of without.

 

I wonder how they can live in thailand under such fear from not having one.

[Sujo]

1 minute ago, Thomas J said:

 No and they could not have envisioned the internet but does that change the right to free speech.  The 14th amendment says that any person "born under the jurisdiction" of the USA that is born on USA soil is a USA citizen.  This was one of 3 post civil war amendments dealing with slavery meant to guarantee that slaves and their children would be citizens.  There was no contemplation of it applying to illegal immigrants since at that time there was no "immigration" law.  Yet somehow despite the clear intent of those writing the law it still applies today.

Back when the second amendment was penned there were no laws governing firearms ownership.  Any person, of any age, without any background check, etc could own a gun.  Now I am "for" any and all laws that will "prevent" criminals, and those wishing to do harm to others from possessing a firearm.  With that said, I can't imagine how you would have a system that would screen those wanting to do harm from other citizens.  The alternative then is to ban all firearms and that I believe would only lead to the same thing experienced with drugs and during prohibition with alcohol.  A black market where those who by their very nature are those you wish not to have guns being the only ones with them. 

Lots of deflection there. 

[Surelynot]

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

Some would strangely prefer to live in a society with guns instead of without.

 

I wonder how they can live in thailand under such fear from not having one.

It is weird ...to me at least......guns seem to be more addictive than crack.........take my gun away and I can't live...life has no meaning.....

[Yellowtail]

8 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

It is weird ...to me at least......guns seem to be more addictive than crack.........take my gun away and I can't live...life has no meaning.....

 

More deflection.

 

How many guns have you had, and how much cocaine  have you had? How long were you addicted? 

 

I would have said crack, you no doubt you'd make some sophomoric joke. 

[Thomas J]

6 hours ago, Walker88 said:

Congress could easily put AR-15s, AK-47s and other weapons that differ from war weapons only in the 'full auto' selection switch (the difference in firing rate is minimal between an M4 and an AR-15)

It is obvious you know little about firearms and firearms law.  It is already illegal to own a fully automatic firearm.  Only special Federal Firearms Licensed dealers can purchase them and they in turn sell to Law Enforcement.  

The AR-15 is a semi-automatic firearm.  That is one pull of the trigger gets one shot.  A fully automatic weapon one pull of the trigger and held empties the entire gun.  So if it has 30 shells it fires 30 times instantaneously.  

Now semi-automatic rifles are VERY COMMON for hunters.  The only other choices are Pump Action, Lever Action, or Bolt Action.  

Now consider a shotgun 12 gauge pump with 5 shot 3"  #4 buckshot.  
A single shot distributes 41 projectiles each larger than a single shot from a .223 - AR-15.  Multiply that by 5 and in seconds far more death and destruction can be unleased by a 5 shot pump than a semi-automatic AR-15 or AK-47.   Those shotguns can also be modified with ease with a large tube expanding their shell capacity from 5 to 10 or more. 

So when the mass shooter can't get his AR-15 but walks into a church with his 12 gauge shotgun and kills 30 people do you ban shotguns too? 

I am for keeping guns out of the hands of those who intend to use them to hurt or kill someone.  I however am not for legislation that only the law abiding will follow, and that has next to ZERO impact on reducing gun deaths.  

The focus on AR-15's is misguided.  First it is nothing more than a .223 caliber semi-automatic that is cosmetically altered to look military.  There are numerous other .223 caliber semi-automatics out there with identical firepower.  The .223 caliber is puny. Numerous hunting rifles are semi-automatic with .30 caliber bullets making them far more powerful.  Any of them can be changed to hold 20, 30, or 40 bullets just by changing the size of clip attached to them.  Most by design come with only a 5 shot clip.  Ban high capacity clips.  Assuming you don't create a black market for high capacity clips.  It takes a mere few seconds for a shooter with a second, third, or 4th clip to eject the spent one and insert the new one. 

Again, we share the same goal - Reduce deaths but I think right now there is a push to "do something" to create the illusion of solving the problem when the proposals being pushed will do nothing but hamper law abiding citizens and do nothing to stop those who should not have a gun from obtaining one. 

 

[Thomas J]

17 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Lots of deflection there. 

No, the comment was made that the framers could not have envisioned the powerful semi-automatic rifles.  I am just pointing out if you are going to "infer" that somehow what they could not foresee makes a difference than it applies to not just the second amendment.  

[Thomas J]

25 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

The end game of the left is confiscation of all guns. Of course there will be exceptions so the rich can continue to have armed bodyguards

yes the end game is the confiscation of all guns.  It "logically" has to lead there since banning those "scary" assault" weapons will only cause those wishing to do harm to an alternate gun.  First another semi-automatic rifle, then to shotguns, and as shown at Ft. Hood a handgun. 

The USA has implemented total bans on numerous items not the least of which are illegal drugs.  That has only led to the enrichment of the criminal underworld and drugs gang violence 

We have laws against speeding but there are still speeders.  We have laws against rape but people still get raped.  We have laws against drunk driving but people still do it.  etc. etc. etc.  

It is lunacy to think that somehow a person who is willing to walk into a group of people with a firearm and kill them will somehow be prevented from doing so because the firearm he is using is illegal or was illegally obtained. 

Now the other lunacy to me is that there were 221 deaths in 2019 from mass shootings.  The vast majority of gun homicides are not mass shootings but drug gangs using handguns.   So even if you could completely stop the mass shootings it would have a statistically insignificant effect on the total number of firearm deaths. 

[Thomas J]

35 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

People + Guns= Deaths

No bad people + guns equals deaths. 

Good people + guns equals protection

Again even if I bought your premise, it is shear folly to somehow thing that in a nation that has 1933 miles (3.093 km) with Mexico, 3.987 miles (6.416 km) with Canada. To say nothing of the thousands of miles of coastline on the Atlantic and Pacific sides of the USA that somehow prohibited firearms will not make their way into the USA.  What you do guarantee is that law abiding citizens will not buy those because they are illegal but those wishing to misuse them will not care. 

[Yellowtail]

14 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

yes the end game is the confiscation of all guns.  It "logically" has to lead there since banning those "scary" assault" weapons will only cause those wishing to do harm to an alternate gun.  First another semi-automatic rifle, then to shotguns, and as shown at Ft. Hood a handgun. 

The USA has implemented total bans on numerous items not the least of which are illegal drugs.  That has only led to the enrichment of the criminal underworld and drugs gang violence 

We have laws against speeding but there are still speeders.  We have laws against rape but people still get raped.  We have laws against drunk driving but people still do it.  etc. etc. etc.  

It is lunacy to think that somehow a person who is willing to walk into a group of people with a firearm and kill them will somehow be prevented from doing so because the firearm he is using is illegal or was illegally obtained. 

Now the other lunacy to me is that there were 221 deaths in 2019 from mass shootings.  The vast majority of gun homicides are not mass shootings but drug gangs using handguns.   So even if you could completely stop the mass shootings it would have a statistically insignificant effect on the total number of firearm deaths. 

 

As sadly, no one seems able to actually formulate a substantive response, they will just call this deflection move on.

 

It is interesting they ridicule the right for claiming the the laws will only lead to confiscating all laws, then go on to admit their end game is to confiscate all guns. 

[GinBoy2]

Well unfortunately we are where we are.

 

Even if you stopped all gun sales tomorrow the US is simply awash with firearms, so thats not going to do anything instantaneously.

 

Unless we did something along the lines of Australia and have a mass compulsory buyback, and thats about as likely as me be elected the next Pope, the question is what do you do?

 

This a problem decades in the making, so it's going to be decades in the fixing, anyone that thinks otherwise is delusional.

 

First are the baby steps. Now I own a gun, and have no problem with you background checking me until the cows come home. But these are the really simple things that we get all strung up over.

I think 'most' people would agree that you don't get to drive a car until you pass a test, yet the thought of having to have a background check to own a deadly weapon is an anathema!

 

Unfortunately, shooting up an elementary school did nothing to move the dial on this, so pretty much resigned myself to the fact I'll be long gone before anything changes.

[Surelynot]

43 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

More deflection.

 

How many guns have you had, and how much cocaine  have you had? How long were you addicted? 

 

I would have said crack, you no doubt you'd make some sophomoric joke. 

Never even touched a gun in my life, apart from a Chieftain battle tank. Never taken any drugs other than alcohol and drugs for medication........seem to have managed so far without a gun. that#s for sure....might start trying a few drugs though....quite fancy that.

[Surelynot]

22 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

No bad people + guns equals deaths. 

Good people + guns equals protection

Again even if I bought your premise, it is shear folly to somehow thing that in a nation that has 1933 miles (3.093 km) with Mexico, 3.987 miles (6.416 km) with Canada. To say nothing of the thousands of miles of coastline on the Atlantic and Pacific sides of the USA that somehow prohibited firearms will not make their way into the USA.  What you do guarantee is that law abiding citizens will not buy those because they are illegal but those wishing to misuse them will not care. 

Yes....thinking about it, you are doomed.....I would start to learn Japanese or German.

[Thomas J]

8 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

It is interesting they ridicule the right for claiming the the laws will only lead to confiscating all laws, then go on to admit their end game is to confiscate all guns.

|
At least Surleynot was not hypocritical in that he openly stated he wants to prohibit private ownership of firearms.  What I find laughable is that we 1. can not keep illegal human beings from entering the country  2. We can not keep illegal drugs from entering the country.  3. We can not keep illegal drugs or weapons from even entering our prisons 4. We can not keep counterfeit products from entering the country  etc. 

But somehow we can prohibit illegal guns.   

The other thing is there are a total of 221 deaths from mass shootings in 2019.  I don't mean to minimize anyone's death but that pales to comparison to 38,000 highway deaths of which 10,497 were alcohol related.  But somehow those deaths which are 47 1/2 times greater don't matter and certainly don't call for a "ban" on alcohol to save lives. 

I don't know how those believe somehow you can "legislate" morals and behavior.  As Timothy McVeigh showed as did the 911 hijackers you dont need a gun to kill lots of people.  

[Thomas J]

Just now, Surelynot said:

Yes....thinking about it, you are doomed.....I would start to learn Japanese or German.

Well two things.  First off I commend you for at least being honest about wanting to ban private ownership of guns.  Most just fall behind the banner of "sensible gun control" without stepping up. 

Second, no I am not worried about being killed from a mass shooter.  I take a far greater risk each and every day entering Thailand's roadways.  In the USA I could die from a traffic accident with a drunk driver, I could get stabbed by a terrorist yelling Allah Akbar, I could be trapped in a burning building by an arsonist etc etc etc.  However in the schemes of things, those risks including being shot by a mass killer with an AR-15 are extremely small. If "saving lives" rather than a personal distaste for guns was TRULY the motivating factor the emphasis would be on those efforts that would truly save THE HIGHEST number of lives.  With 70,000 dying from drug overdoses I personally would start there.  That number is 316 times greater than those killed in mass shootings.  As a business person if I wanted to have a meaningful impact on my business I focused on reducing the costs, and I sure didn't not pay much attention to the trying to reduce the cost that caused the least amount of expense. 

 

[Surelynot]

2 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Well two things.  First off I commend you for at least being honest about wanting to ban private ownership of guns.  Most just fall behind the banner of "sensible gun control" without stepping up. 

Second, no I am not worried about being killed from a mass shooter.  I take a far greater risk each and every day entering Thailand's roadways.  In the USA I could die from a traffic accident with a drunk driver, I could get stabbed by a terrorist yelling Allah Akbar, I could be trapped in a burning building by an arsonist etc etc etc.  However in the schemes of things, those risks including being shot by a mass killer with an AR-15 are extremely small. If "saving lives" rather than a personal distaste for guns was TRULY the motivating factor the emphasis would be on those efforts that would truly save THE HIGHEST number of lives.  With 70,000 dying from drug overdoses I personally would start there.  That number is 316 times greater than those killed in mass shootings.  As a business person if I wanted to have a meaningful impact on my business I focused on reducing the costs, and I sure didn't not pay much attention to the trying to reduce the cost that caused the least amount of expense. 

 

The old 80:20 rule springs to mind.........management days are long behind me thank god......dodged two corporate manslaughter charges.....happy to be out of it now.

[EVENKEEL]

Just to be clear, the gun used in Colorado was not an AR-15

 

https://lenexweb.com/what-we-know-about-the-gun-used-in-the-boulder-shooting/

 

According to a police affidavit, the suspect charged with 10 counts of homicide, Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa, purchased a Ruger AR-556 semiautomatic weapon, basically a shortened model of an AR-15 type rifle marketed as a pistol, six days earlier than the killings happened. It can also be unclear if that weapon was used in the capturing on Monday.

[Walker88]

3 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

The argument you are making would not have prevented the shootings, it would only have likely reduced the number of deaths. So rather than 50 deaths as a result of mass shootings, we'd have only 10-20, yes?

 

So rather than ~40,000 gun deaths a year, we'd only have 39,980....

 

It's brilliant!

 

Now that is a spurious argument indicating an astonishing lack of human empathy.

 

Add up all the folks slaughtered by AR-15 killers. Imagine one of the dead is your wife or girlfriend.  Maybe if the perp only had a 9mm handgun, he couldn't have been as accurate with his shots and the bullets would have done less damage, so that an emergency room doc might have saved her. Also, a cop entering the scene might have the same gun but be better trained in its use, and might have stopped the slaughter early on..

 

Now add up all the lives saved. Yes, some would still get shot with a 9mm or .38 Special or shotgun, because it is America, after all, and if the country does nothing else, it certainly knows how to do mass killings.

 

Aurora was an AR-15. Pulse was an MCX, which is just an AR-15 without the bolt assist. Las Vegas was multiple ARs. A handgun from that distance would have resulted in dozens fewer casualties. Summerland was an AR-15. Sandy Hook was an AR-15.

 

Perhaps a few dozen lives here and there don't mean anything to you, but to humans capable of empathy, it does, and certainly outweighs the want of some gun guy to own one of those things.

[pacovl46]

7 hours ago, simple1 said:

 

Seems to me if a member of the public is not trained to respond to an 'active shooter' situation, the last thing law enforcement and the public would want is for them to be involved, further complicating law enforcement response.

That might be true, but if someone walks into a cinema and starts shooting people during a screening of the latest Batman flick and someone in the crowd pulls a gun and puts the shooters lights out he could potentially save the lives of a hundred people. Also, if the shooter knew everyone in that cinema is armed he’d probably be looking for a different target unless he’s on a suicide mission.

[Walker88]

1 hour ago, EVENKEEL said:

Just to be clear, the gun used in Colorado was not an AR-15

 

https://lenexweb.com/what-we-know-about-the-gun-used-in-the-boulder-shooting/

 

According to a police affidavit, the suspect charged with 10 counts of homicide, Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa, purchased a Ruger AR-556 semiautomatic weapon, basically a shortened model of an AR-15 type rifle marketed as a pistol, six days earlier than the killings happened. It can also be unclear if that weapon was used in the capturing on Monday.

it's an AR-15, just by another name. BATF has an odd way of defining things, as this killer's gun qualifies as a 'pistol' because of its overall length. it fires the same rounds as an AR-15. it's 5.56 designation means it also can fire .223 Remington, which is essentially the same round, albeit

 

The receiver is the same. The bolt action is the same as an AR-15. The charging handle and everything else about it is the same as an AR-15. The sole difference is in the stock/overall length.

 

Remove the butt stock and put a longer one on, and it's an AR-15.

[Eric Loh]

2 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

That might be true, but if someone walks into a cinema and starts shooting people during a screening of the latest Batman flick and someone in the crowd pulls a gun and puts the shooters lights out he could potentially save the lives of a hundred people. Also, if the shooter knew everyone in that cinema is armed he’d probably be looking for a different target unless he’s on a suicide mission.

You ought to direct the next Batman movie. You do have the talent for story telling. 

[Walker88]

46 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

You ought to direct the next Batman movie. You do have the talent for story telling. 

You have to understand the thinking of a gun guy.....

 

The US has more guns that any other country. It also has the most gun killings of any country.  "Therefore" the answer to too many gun killings because there are too many guns, is more guns.

 

Imagine all the problems we can solve in a similar manner!  For alcoholics, the answer is more booze. For the morbidly obese, the answer is more food. For a city's traffic problems, the answer is more cars. For dirty and polluted air...you guessed it---more toxic effluent.

 

We can make this Earth a paradise if we just think more more more.

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, Walker88 said:

 

Now that is a spurious argument indicating an astonishing lack of human empathy.

 

Add up all the folks slaughtered by AR-15 killers. Imagine one of the dead is your wife or girlfriend.  Maybe if the perp only had a 9mm handgun, he couldn't have been as accurate with his shots and the bullets would have done less damage, so that an emergency room doc might have saved her. Also, a cop entering the scene might have the same gun but be better trained in its use, and might have stopped the slaughter early on..

 

Now add up all the lives saved. Yes, some would still get shot with a 9mm or .38 Special or shotgun, because it is America, after all, and if the country does nothing else, it certainly knows how to do mass killings.

 

Aurora was an AR-15. Pulse was an MCX, which is just an AR-15 without the bolt assist. Las Vegas was multiple ARs. A handgun from that distance would have resulted in dozens fewer casualties. Summerland was an AR-15. Sandy Hook was an AR-15.

 

Perhaps a few dozen lives here and there don't mean anything to you, but to humans capable of empathy, it does, and certainly outweighs the want of some gun guy to own one of those things.

 

Oh yes, lefty's old "we care so much more than your evil wingers that care noting for human lives" argument.

 

No doubt the next line will be "If we only save one life it will all be worth it" 

 

It's tiresome. The only lives you guys care about are the lives you can make political hay from. If you truly cared about gun deaths you would do something about all the gang members killing each other and the innocents that are killed in the crossfire. 

 

If you cared about people's lives you'd have come out against all the antifa black-lives-mater riots that killed over thirty and ruined countless others.

 

Save the pablum for the fools that buy into that idiocy, 

 

Edited March 25, 2021 by Yellowtail
sp

[robblok]

I think the US gun laws are stupid, but that is just me. Now i can see the need for guns for hunting. But why do they allow the sale of these assault rifle guns. I mean if you ban those and buy them back and put a lot of jailtime on people owning them or caught with them. Then maybe maybe a few people will be saved.

 

Normal guns will be impossible to get out of the hands of the gun loving crowd but these guns should just be outlawed. What is the use of these guns ? why the need of so much firepower.