Shooting erupts at Colorado supermarket, bloodied man shown in handcuffs

[Walker88]

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

How do you come to that conclusion?

 

Don't you know?

 

If he's white, he's either crazed or 'having a really bad day'.

 

If he's Arab and Moslem, "Where was this terrorist radicalized?"

 

(Turns out he was a bullied kid when growing up and going to school.....in the US)

[Walker88]

10 hours ago, Bradmeister said:

I lived in the Table Mesa area, went to school at CU. Shopped at King Soopers.

 

I had plenty of rifles and handguns, so did everybody else. Our relatives, neighbors and friends.  

 

Teachers, store keeps and ranchers. 

 

It does not mean we are all reckless and homiscidal maniacs. 

 

People have been killing people since the begining of time with poisons, brute force, knlves, arrows and bombs. 

 

Now, we kill people with alcohol and fast and heavy vehicles.  Some kill by falling asleep behind the wheel of a Tractor trailer and others.... like to set things on fire.

 

Dont kid yourselves, America became the great country it is now  because of firearms. 

 

We like waring, we obviously cant get enough of it. We like building war machines, and we are the best at it. 

 

Now throw into the mix. People are becoming <deleted> off with taxes, insurance, restrictive laws, and Law Enforcement officers who are becoming judge, jury and executioners.... 

 

On another note. What is Boulder County doing with no less than 3 armored vehicles???? They expecting a War in that  little college town? 

 

1 man, 1 man killed 10 people?  If any other person had a firearm, the assault would have ended, less people killed and less waste of the taxpayers money. 

 

It seems as though the world is in Khaos and Meyham.  

 

 

 

 

Have you ever been in combat? Ever been shot at? What's your MOA with a handgun when someone else is shooting back at you with a semi-auto rifle? You're so steady and brave you could gather yourself, aim and take out the perp without hitting innocents?

 

" If any other person had a firearm, the assault would have ended"

 

Officer Talley had a handgun. He'd also been trained to use it. He's dead.

 

An AR-15 vs a 'good guy with a gun' is asymmetric warfare.

 

A guy with a knife can kill a few people, to be sure, but he can also be overcome easier. A guy with an AR-15, with a 30-round mag, and half a dozen spare mags on his chest rig, can kill a hundred people in minutes. A guy killed 50 in minutes in a nightclub in Florida. If he'd only had a knife, how many could he have killed?

 

Have you ever seen the wounds an AR-15, firing a 5.56 NATO 55 -grain round at a muzzle velocity of 3200 fps can leave in a victim?  In 25 victims in a minute, like at Parkland? How about a 7.62 round out of an AK-47---also legal in the US---similar to what folks face in Iraq and Afghanistan?

 

Nobody goes hunting deer with an AR-15 with a hundred round mag that looks like it came off a Thompson. Nobody is going to 'defend against tyranny' with such a weapon, if 'tyranny' means a govt with highly trained SEALS or with Apache gunships.

 

There comes a point when sane people should realize the risks of having semi-auto rifles in public hands outweighs whatever the 'benefits' are.

 

 

[Jeffr2]

28 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

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. 

It's been proven that doesn't work. Only makes criminals more hardened.  Do some research on it.

 

 

[Jeffr2]

13 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

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.

No research?  Then it's just your opinion.  That and 5 baht will get me....ahhh...no it won't. LOL

[JCauto]

You see his photo? Looks like a typical fat White dude. The po-po couldn't inspect his background visually in this case as he was "White-passing".

Edited March 30, 2021 by onthedarkside
quote of hidden post removed

[heybruce]

28 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

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. 

The person who commits a crime with the stolen gun should be prosecuted for the crime and the use of the stolen gun.  I'll leave it up to the judicial system to decide on the sentence.

 

The person who made it easy to steal the gun should be prosecuted for criminal negligence.  Again I'll leave it to the judicial system to decide on the penalty.

[heybruce]

14 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

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.

Shootings by competent snipers are rare, but do happen.  High capacity weapons are more often used for close quarter mass slaughter, as happened in this topic's subject.

 

I'm sure you can find a better hobby.

 

I would feel better knowing that a sniper had to reload more often while attempting to keep police at bay.

[heybruce]

18 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

 

Have you ever been in combat? Ever been shot at? What's your MOA with a handgun when someone else is shooting back at you with a semi-auto rifle? You're so steady and brave you could gather yourself, aim and take out the perp without hitting innocents?

 

" If any other person had a firearm, the assault would have ended"

 

Officer Talley had a handgun. He'd also been trained to use it. He's dead.

 

An AR-15 vs a 'good guy with a gun' is asymmetric warfare.

 

A guy with a knife can kill a few people, to be sure, but he can also be overcome easier. A guy with an AR-15, with a 30-round mag, and half a dozen spare mags on his chest rig, can kill a hundred people in minutes. A guy killed 50 in minutes in a nightclub in Florida. If he'd only had a knife, how many could he have killed?

 

Have you ever seen the wounds an AR-15, firing a 5.56 NATO 55 -grain round at a muzzle velocity of 3200 fps can leave in a victim?  In 25 victims in a minute, like at Parkland? How about a 7.62 round out of an AK-47---also legal in the US---similar to what folks face in Iraq and Afghanistan?

 

Nobody goes hunting deer with an AR-15 with a hundred round mag that looks like it came off a Thompson. Nobody is going to 'defend against tyranny' with such a weapon, if 'tyranny' means a govt with highly trained SEALS or with Apache gunships.

 

There comes a point when sane people should realize the risks of having semi-auto rifles in public hands outweighs whatever the 'benefits' are.

 

"Nobody is going to 'defend against tyranny' with such a weapon, if 'tyranny' means a govt with highly trained SEALS or with Apache gunships."

 

Good point, but an understatement.

 

When the Second Amendment was written civilian arms were as good as, if not better than, military arms.  That is no longer the case.

 

Despots today love it when troublesome protesters resort to arms; it justifies unleashing the military on them.  That happened in not long ago in Thailand and may happen to a worse degree in Myanmar in the near future.  Despots live in fear of persistent unarmed protesters that the military may not fire upon.

 

Tyrants today don't fear protesters with guns, they fear protesters with smart phones.  The Second Amendment is no longer our defense against tyranny, the First Amendment is.

Edited March 24, 2021 by heybruce

[Walker88]

The partisan talk after this week's mass shooting is as predictable as ever.

 

As the GOP (Republican Party) says, or acts:

 

"We'll never take away your right to guns, but we WILL take away your right to vote".

[Rimmer]

A post with a link to a questionable web site has been removed

[Berkshire]

14 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

The partisan talk after this week's mass shooting is as predictable as ever.

 

As the GOP (Republican Party) says, or acts:

 

"We'll never take away your right to guns, but we WILL take away your right to vote".

Believe it or not, both are related.  Republicans know that if they are out of power, sensible gun laws would be passed.  So they have to stay in power and the only way to stay in power is to suppress the vote.  America has been ruled by a minority party for some time, especially at the state level.   

[simple1]

2 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

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.

 

IMO politicians should be banned from receiving donations from any lobby group or private / commercial organisation legislation to address this matter is long overdue

 

I understand in this instance and other mass killings in the US, killers have mainly used legally acquired weapons. IMO enabling the general population to carry semi auto rifles and so on in public places is absurd. But if that's how the majority of voters in a State wish to live so be it. Personally I would not wish to live in an environment where members of the public are permitted to carry weapons.

[Jeffr2]

15 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

IMO politicians should be banned from receiving donations from any lobby group or private / commercial organisation legislation to address this matter is long overdue

 

I understand in this instance and other mass killings in the US, killers have mainly used legally acquired weapons. IMO enabling the general population to carry semi auto rifles and so on in public places is absurd. But if that's how the majority of voters in a State wish to live so be it. Personally I would not wish to live in an environment where members of the public are permitted to carry weapons.

Trump campaigned on draining the swamp.  Then went and hired former lobbyists to run several departments.  Go figure.

 

Time to take the money out of politics, and term limits for members of congress.  2 terms and you're out.

[Jeffr2]

These sad truths about mass shootings in the US are self-evident:

 

1. In a country with easy access to guns, there will be mass shootings. A lot of them.
2. Shootings will cost lives in red states and blue states, cities and suburbs.
3. Lawmakers will talk about making it ever-so-slightly more difficult for people to buy guns.
4. They will fail to do anything about it.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/23/us/7-mass-shootings-7-days-trnd/index.html

 

The Colorado attack is the 7th mass shooting in 7 days in the US

 

They happen in places with the most lax gun laws. The shooter in Georgia bought his firearm the day he is alleged to have carried out the attacks, according to police. There's no waiting period to buy a gun in Georgia, making it a much easier process than, say, registering to vote, which takes more time there.

 

 

 

 

[Eric Loh]

44 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

The partisan talk after this week's mass shooting is as predictable as ever.

 

As the GOP (Republican Party) says, or acts:

 

"We'll never take away your right to guns, but we WILL take away your right to vote".

You are right about the partisanship on both issue of guns and votes. Both subjects are unpopular with the people in general but widely supported within the Rep party. A high percentage of Americans favour stricter gun laws and is rising every year. 86% Dems and Dems leaning independents said gun laws should be stricter compared with only 31% of their Republican counterparts. Kind of boggles my mind as to why the GOP chose that unpopular path and perhaps will never win the next election. I put that down to the GOPs chosing the path of less resistance to stay in politics at the expense of the party.  

[Surelynot]

11 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

You are right about the partisanship on both issue of guns and votes. Both subjects are unpopular with the people in general but widely supported within the Rep party. A high percentage of Americans favour stricter gun laws and is rising every year. 86% Dems and Dems leaning independents said gun laws should be stricter compared with only 31% of their Republican counterparts. Kind of boggles my mind as to why the GOP chose that unpopular path and perhaps will never win the next election. I put that down to the GOPs chosing the path of less resistance to stay in politics at the expense of the party.  

Don't follow US politics that closely, but it seems pro-gun control are reasonably intelligent, liberal minded Democrat voters plus some Republicans born with morals and a brain.

 

Pro-gun are the Republican weirdos you see in Walmart dressed in full combat gear plus AK-47 buying a loaf of bread.

 

So the GOP has a real problem......their core support comes from nut-jobs who will never accept any form of gun controls.......but if the GOP tries to switch to pro-gun control they will lose their core supporters and yet, still not pick up the liberal minded Democrats......seems like a rock and hard place......feel for them.

[Surelynot]

1 minute ago, Thomas J said:

So if the man had used a truck to run over people would you favor banning trucks.

555.......and the prize for the single most stupid comment made this year goes to .................

[Surelynot]

3 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

If gun laws are "so effective" why is Mexico one of the highest homicide rates in the world.  Mexico has only 1 legal gun store run by the government and legally owning a gun takes months and requires extensive background checks. 

Laws in a lawless country are ineffective, agreed.....try Japan for size....see if that fits.

[Thomas J]

Just now, Surelynot said:

555.......and the prize for the single most stupid comment made this year goes to .................

Yes pointing to the implement, whether that is a gun, knife,  a bomb, etc.  used to cause death as the culprit is the most stupid comment made this year. 

 

[Surelynot]

4 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

f Switzerland tells us anything about gun ownership it is not that the gun itself is the determining factor but the character of the people. 

Bravo....and those people should not be allowed guns.

[Jingthing]

6 hours ago, pegman said:

Would you believe Archie comic books?

 

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

Yes, thank you. I suspected it had to be a strange origin story. But the plot thickens. According to that article, it's not clear that 'Sooper' was actually ever said in Archie comics!  I was into Archie comics myself as a kid and don't remember Sooper but that doesn't mean anything. 

Edited March 24, 2021 by Jingthing

[polpott]

14 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

If guns are the problem you will need to explain to me, how Switzerland which has a 28% household firearms ownership rate has not had a single mass shooting since 2001 versus a 31% firearms ownership rate in the USA. 

I think that your gun ownership stats for the US are a bit awry.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_ownership

"Gun ownership is the act of owning a gun. In 2018, Small Arms Survey reported that there are over one billion small arms distributed globally, of which 857 million (about 85 percent) are in civilian hands.[1][2] The Small Arms Survey stated that U.S. civilians alone account for 393 million (about 46 percent) of the worldwide total of civilian held firearms.[2] This amounts to "120.5 firearms for every 100 residents."

 

The highest in the world by far. Yemen comes 2nd with 52 fire arms per hundred in the civilian population and they have been in civil war for many years. Who is the US at war with?

 

Edited March 24, 2021 by polpott

[PatOngo]

8 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

If guns are the problem you will need to explain to me

No TJ, guns are not the problem, Americans who own them are the problem!

[Jingthing]

3 minutes ago, PatOngo said:

No TJ, guns are not the problem, Americans who own them are the problem!

I wonder where you got that tired old NRA talking point. 

[PatOngo]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

I wonder where you got that tired old NRA talking point. 

From the NRA garbage bin! ????

[Mr Derek]

Guns can never be taken out of American society because American society is neurotic and insecure, and the factors increasing the neuroticism and insecurity (principally racial tension, rampant immigration, and the new cult of victimhood) are increasing, and all the evidence is that they will continue to increase. The solutions to this problem, such as once existed, are now unthinkable due to the representational levels of the groups in question.

The problem arose because of the confusion between human rights and constitutional rights. It's too late to fix. America has made this bed for itself and now must lie on it.

 

[Thomas J]

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I wonder where you got that tired old NRA talking point. 

I am not a member of the NRA However you have a policeman with a firearm and a criminal with a firearm.  Why would you run to one for assistance and run from the other one if it was not for the difference in the character of the two not the fact that both had a firearm. 

[Eric Loh]

8 minutes ago, PatOngo said:

No TJ, guns are not the problem, Americans who own them are the problem!

The Republicans who are against stricter gun laws are also the problem. Sarah Huckabee Sanders that have the public ears and said "Its our God-given right to have guns" is the problem. Promises made by Trump on gun control reform but never did is the problem.  

[Surelynot]

14 minutes ago, Mr Derek said:

America has made this bed for itself and now must lie on it.

America has made this bed for itself and now must die on it.

[polpott]

https://www.statista.com/statistics/249740/percentage-of-households-in-the-united-states-owning-a-firearm/

 

42% of households in the US own a gun in 2020. It isn't significantly falling. 43% of households in 1972, 43% of households in 2018.