53 minutes ago, joecoolfrog said:

 

I wish one of you apologists would be honest enough to say what you really think , along the lines of ;

" I like guns , sure they mean thousands of my fellow citizens will be slaughtered annually , but thats not important because I like guns "

I don't think you read my post correctly.

I am curious about the origin of the odd name King Soopers where the shooting occurred. So I looked it up and found they are part of Kroger which is a brand name that I grew up with. But I still don't get it. The King part I get like Carpet King or King of Donuts. But what's Soopers about? A cute intentional misspelling of soup? Please inform. 

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I am curious about the origin of the odd name King Soopers where the shooting occurred. So I looked it up and found they are part of Kroger which is a brand name that I grew up with. But I still don't get. The King part I get like Carpet King or King of Donuts. But what's Soopers about? A cute intentional misspelling of soup? Please inform. 

Can't answer your question, but there's a chance Kroger bought them and didn't change the name because it was already a brand with a following.  They did that with Fred Meyer's supermarkets in Oregon, and the name remains. 

 

I think Colorado is one of those states that passed laws that prevent further gun laws from being passed and prohibits studies regarding gun ownership.  Just a matter of time before such laws are called into question.  Good ol' NRA activism.  Not to make light of this situation, but if the good guy with the gun is killed there goes their prized premise.

 

 

11 minutes ago, bendejo said:

Can't answer your question, but there's a chance Kroger bought them and didn't change the name because it was already a brand with a following.  They did that with Fred Meyer's supermarkets in Oregon, and the name remains. 

 

...

 

 

Yeah I understand it was already an established brand before Kroger. Maybe there was a person named Sooper behind it. That would make sense. But what throws me is how it rhymes with soup.

12 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

Couple years ago the homicide rate in London was higher than New York...  

Sounds like FAKE NEWS. In 2017 the homicide rate in NYC was more than double that of London. Can you provide a link to the data you reference? 

 

 https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/18/world/london-us-cities-homicide-rates-comparison-intl-gbr

58 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Yeah I understand it was already an established brand before Kroger. Maybe there was a person named Sooper behind it. That would make sense. But what throws me is how it rhymes with soup.

Would you believe Archie comic books?

 

https://www.cpr.org/show-segment/where-did-the-sooper-in-the-king-soopers-name-come-from/

Local media background coverage of killer...

 

https://www.denverpost.com/2021/03/23/boulder-shooting-suspect-ahmad-al-aliwi-alissa/

 

 

Nonsense posts removed.   Stop trolling or face a suspension.

 

10 hours ago, PatOngo said:

Wake up to what! I dont give a rats toss about their problems! Its not MY problem!

Wake up to the reality that banning guns in the US won’t make the shootings go away! 

11 hours ago, Meat Pie 47 said:

just look at the replies here, most if not all for guns are republican or Trump supporters

I’m for guns and I’m neither republican nor democrat nor American nor do I live there. It’s just extremely obvious to me  that banning guns won’t achieve anything. Just look a drugs, they were made illegal and the drug problem did not go away because of that! Most gun crimes are related to drugs and it’s not like gangsters are using legally in their name registered guns to commit their crimes. They use guns they bought on the black market. If you make guns illegal then all it will do is to expand the already existing black market and the shootings will continue regardless. 

19 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Mass murder is immoral and unjust and happens a great deal less where citizens are not permitted automatic fire arms.

 

 

That’s a misperception. You can’t compare the US with other countries in that regard because in the US they’ve had the right to bear arms for over two centuries and there’s tons of guns in the country already as opposed to most other nations where most people do not have had the right to bear arms for I don’t know how many decades or even centuries. Then there’s the fact that the social situation is different, too. 
 

Banning guns in the US now won’t achieve anything! Because most shooting crimes are related to drug and they don’t use legally registered guns anyway, they buy their guns on the black market. Banning guns would only expand the already existing black market and that’s that.

12 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

Wake up to the reality that banning guns in the US won’t make the shootings go away! 

So far as I know there is no intention to ban guns in the US, but to limit / ban access to certain weapons and attachments used in mass killings e.g. semi auto rifles, large capacity magazines. 

 

I have read many States have a very poor compliance record for reporting mental health issues for background checks, can still acquire weapons from friends / gun shows etc without federal background checks. Any act of violence conviction should automatically bans gun ownership for life. IMO it should be federally banned that weapons manufacturers, suppliers and NRA donate to State and Federal politicians and political parties

25 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

Wake up to the reality that banning guns in the US won’t make the shootings go away! 

I understand that!...................Happy shooting!

3 minutes ago, simple1 said:

So far as I know there is no intention to ban guns in the US, but to limit / ban access to certain weapons and attachments used in mass killings e.g. semi auto rifles, large capacity magazines. 

 

I have read many States have a very poor compliance record for reporting mental health issues for background checks, can still acquire weapons from friends / gun shows etc without federal background checks. Any act of violence conviction should automatically bans gun ownership for life. IMO it should be federally banned that weapons manufacturers, suppliers and NRA donate to State and Federal politicians and political parties

If they are happy to shoot each other, let them! Old habits die hard!

6 minutes ago, simple1 said:

So far as I know there is no intention to ban guns in the US, but to limit / ban access to certain weapons and attachments used in mass killings e.g. semi auto rifles, large capacity magazines. 

 

I have read many States have a very poor compliance record for reporting mental health issues for background checks, can still acquire weapons from friends / gun shows etc without federal background checks. Any act of violence conviction should automatically bans gun ownership for life. IMO it should be federally banned that weapons manufacturers, suppliers and NRA donate to State and Federal politicians and political parties

They already made it more difficult by banning fully automatic weapons for civilians. Yes, there’s definitely lots of room for improvident, no doubt about that. As far as financial contributions to politicians go, where would you draw the line, Oil companies, Monsanto? There’s far more dangerous people contributing than gun manufacturers! 
 

If one wants a gun, one will get their hands on one! The black market doesn’t do background checks and most guns used in crimes were bought on the black market.

7 hours ago, heybruce said:

Do you think illegal weapons would be so easily available if gun owners were required to keep their weapons properly secured?  Many guns are stolen out of unlocked cars and trucks.

 

I agree that people that keep  guns in the car or truck should be required to lock their car, but I would be curious to know how many guns are stolen from cars and trucks that were left unlocked. I doubt very much that number is significant.

 

It is interesting that there are states with high rates of gun ownership and low rates of gun homicides, and states with low rates of gun ownership and high rates of gun homicides. 

 

Of course there are also states where both are high and states where both are low. 

 

It is generally more difficult to buy a firearm in the US than it has ever been, yes? Certainly more difficult in the blue states.

 

57 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

That’s a misperception. You can’t compare the US with other countries in that regard because in the US they’ve had the right to bear arms for over two centuries and there’s tons of guns in the country already as opposed to most other nations where most people do not have had the right to bear arms for I don’t know how many decades or even centuries. Then there’s the fact that the social situation is different, too. 
 

Banning guns in the US now won’t achieve anything! Because most shooting crimes are related to drug and they don’t use legally registered guns anyway, they buy their guns on the black market. Banning guns would only expand the already existing black market and that’s that.

While the US codified the right to bear arms in the Constitution, it is incorrect to say that citizens of other nations have not had the right to bear arms over the same period.

 

As a general rule of law throughout European nations, things that are not specifically forbidden under law are permitted.

 

There’s a lot more to ‘gun control’ than banning guns, but I expect you know that.

Apparently he received harassment he received for being Muslim in the US.  Racism is alive and well in the US.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/23/us/boulder-colorado-shooting-suspect/index.html

 

The brother told CNN on Tuesday that in high school bullies made fun of Alissa's name and for being Muslim and that may have contributed to him becoming "anti-social."

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

While the US codified the right to bear arms in the Constitution, it is incorrect to say that citizens of other nations have not had the right to bear arms over the same period.

 

As a general rule of law throughout European nations, things that are not specifically forbidden under law are permitted.

 

There’s a lot more to ‘gun control’ than banning guns, but I expect you know that.

 

What new gun control measures do you think would be effective and should be implemented in the US? 

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

What new gun control measures do you think would be effective and should be implemented in the US? 

Stronger background checks.  Elimination of high capacity mags and assault type weapons.  That'd be a good start.

3 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Apparently he received harassment he received for being Muslim in the US.  Racism is alive and well in the US.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/23/us/boulder-colorado-shooting-suspect/index.html

 

The brother told CNN on Tuesday that in high school bullies made fun of Alissa's name and for being Muslim and that may have contributed to him becoming "anti-social."

 

Is Muslim a race?

 

Had they made fun of him for being fat would that have been a contributing factor? 

I consider myself extremely fortunate and grateful for being neither a citizen nor a resident of such a morally decrepit and lawless country. Given a hypothetical choice of either US citizenship with a bonus of 1 million USD or a Russian one without a single cent attached, I would sans hesitation choose the latter. 

2 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Stronger background checks.  Elimination of high capacity mags and assault type weapons.  That'd be a good start.

 

If a background check reveals someone was teased in high school for being a Muslim, should they be disallowed from owning a firearm? I think you mean more effective background checks. 

 

I never understand why all the focus is on "assault" rifles when they represent such a small percentage of gun crime. 

 

 

 far and away more gun homicides with hand guns. 

 

Can you even define "assault" rifle? Many of them are junk with muzzle-breaks and scary looking stocks. 

 

Semi-automatic rifles have been widely available for over a hundred years.  

Inflammatory posts removed.   Tread lightly unless you want a suspension.  

 

17 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

I agree that people that keep  guns in the car or truck should be required to lock their car, but I would be curious to know how many guns are stolen from cars and trucks that were left unlocked. I doubt very much that number is significant.

 

It is interesting that there are states with high rates of gun ownership and low rates of gun homicides, and states with low rates of gun ownership and high rates of gun homicides. 

 

Of course there are also states where both are high and states where both are low. 

 

It is generally more difficult to buy a firearm in the US than it has ever been, yes? Certainly more difficult in the blue states.

 

Just do a search on the terms "gun stolen unlocked car vehicle".  You will get lots of examples.  Here are a few:

 

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/09/717178960/more-guns-in-cars-mean-more-guns-stolen-from-cars

 

https://rapidcityjournal.com/news/five-unlocked-vehicles-seven-guns-stolen-over-the-weekend-in-rapid-city/article_14c3d497-0e3b-5b0c-8095-5dbe12e9ab46.html

 

https://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/20200409/where-do-thieves-steal-guns-from-unlocked-cars-post-data-shows

 

When guns are not in use they should be unloaded and securely locked away.  That is part of basic gun safety that gun owners in the US are not required to know before purchasing a weapon.

 

Gun safety training should be mandatory before being allowed to own a gun.  Furthermore people should be required to report stolen weapons and be held responsible for crimes committed by weapons stolen that were not properly secured.  Laws such as these requiring more responsible behavior from gun owners would reduce gun crimes and accidents.

 

Robert Long, the person who killed eight people at massage studios around Atlanta and was caught on his way to Florida, apparently to commit more murders, purchased his gun the same day that he used it to commit the murders.  Obviously it isn't too difficult to buy a gun in the US.   https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atlanta/georgia-spa-shootings-what-we-know-about-suspect-robert-long/BBCXXQJQEVEG5HZSMPI6AWJVD4/

 

So long as guns can be easily purchased where gun laws are lax and carried to areas where gun laws are more strict, local laws restricting gun ownership will be of little use.

26 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

What new gun control measures do you think would be effective and should be implemented in the US? 

Start with licensing and registration laws similar to those required for driving and owning a car.  Also have similar laws and penalties for carrying a weapon under the influence of drugs or alcohol as are in place for driving under the influence.  Make it a crime to recklessly handle a gun and enforce the law (an example of reckless handling would be pointing a gun at someone without the intent to shoot).  Make the idiotic excuse "I didn't think it was loaded" as an admission of criminal negligence.  If a gun is stolen because it was improperly secured (another example of criminal negligence), hold the owner responsible for crimes committed with that gun.

 

The above would be a good start.

13 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Why don't you? far and away more gun homicides with hand guns. 

 

Can you even define "assault" rifle? Many of them are junk with muzzle-breaks and scary looking stocks. 

 

Semi-automatic rifles have been widely available for over a hundred years.  

How long have semi-automatic rifles with 30 round magazines and designed specifically to fire military ammunition been available?

 

What is the point of civilian ownership of .223/5.56 caliber guns?  They are designed for battle use; they are two powerful for home defense and small game, and not powerful enough for big game hunting.

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Start with licensing and registration laws similar to those required for driving and owning a car.  Also have similar laws and penalties for carrying a weapon under the influence of drugs or alcohol as are in place for driving under the influence.  Make it a crime to recklessly handle a gun and enforce the law (an example of reckless handling would be pointing a gun at someone without the intent to shoot).  Make the idiotic excuse "I didn't think it was loaded" as an admission of criminal negligence.  If a gun is stolen because it was improperly secured (another example of criminal negligence), hold the owner responsible for crimes committed with that gun.

 

The above would be a good start.

 

So build more prisons and incarcerate people that break the law. I support that.

 

Should the person that steals the gun and and commits a crime with it receive at least as harsh a sentence as the person they stole the gun from? I noticed that one of the articles you linked to they were bosting new legislation such that stealing a gun from a car carried a thirty-day sentence. That seems a little weak to me. 

6 minutes ago, heybruce said:

How long have semi-automatic rifles with 30 round magazines and designed specifically to fire military ammunition been available?

 

What is the point of civilian ownership of .223/5.56 caliber guns?  They are designed for battle use; they are two powerful for home defense and small game, and not powerful enough for big game hunting.

 

Without doing any research, I'd say guns that use high-cap mags at least 75 years. No idea about specifically designed for military ammo, but I'd guess most of them. 

 

Inexpensive to buy or build, fun to play with, cheap ammo.

 

Would you feel significantly safer knowing a sniper had a Remington 7400 rather than an AR-15? I would not.