Well it had to happen sooner or later. The Batman saga has been very dark and we could expect that the worst would become evident sooner or later, this wasn't a copy cat but nevertehless pehaps we can have a ban on these dark comic characters inspiring violence
14 killed in mass shooting at Batman screening (http://www.smh.com.au/world/14-killed-in-mass-shooting-at-batman-screening-20120720-22fdw.html)

well it had to happen sooner or later. the Batman saga has been very dark and we could expect that the worst would become evident sooner or later, this wasn't a copy cat but nevertehless pehaps we can have a ban on these dark comic characters inspiring violence
14 killed in mass shooting at Batman screening (http://www.smh.com.au/world/14-killed-in-mass-shooting-at-batman-screening-20120720-22fdw.html)

Too soon to comment... the blood is still warm. All I know is that when the Columbine killings happened people started to point fingers at Marilyn Manson music ;which was absolutely absurd. I don't think his career ever rebounded.

By the way ;Batman has always been a dark psycologically disturbed basket case . The Nolan depiction of dystopian Gotham has been the one that best captures the character and the villians he's battled . Heath Ledger's portrayal of Joker in particular was outstanding .

I was going to go tomorrow to see it ;but the theater is sold out ;so I'll wait a week.

Tom we have some weirdo's in this world and they are set off by dark scenarios. You do know Gotham is synomous with the place where you live and the whole scenario played out in Batman is some sort of metaphor perhaps lost to us now. Look at the characters surely you can find some locals who fit

Yes I already mentioned on another thred that Bruce Wayne /Batman is the 1% er who's public image during the day is every stereotype you see about "the rich" ,and who's altrustic pursuits are not advertised .

What makes Batman different from most of the other Superheros (except perhaps Ironman) is that he is not endowed with any special power . He did not get bit by a spider ,he did not get a dose of a nuke ;he was not born on another planet .He uses his intelligence and learned martial skills ;and his wealth to create the gadgets he uses to fight crime.
But he is a deeply disturbed individual battling the trauma of a bat attack as a child ;and watching his parents get murdered.
The Gotham City in the comics was indeed probably modeled after NYC ,although today's NYC is no where's near as bad as it was before Giuliani . Back in the 1970s one could've made a better case for that comparison.

Nolan in the Dark Night trilogy has tried to update the story to the 21st century. Joker was an OBL like anarchistic terrorists who forced Batman to go to the limits of moral crime fighting tactics . Harvey Dent was the DA who got credit for cleaning up the city while in fact being a corrupted official.
In the new movie ,much of the battle between Batman and Bane was filmed on Wall Street ,and I'm told there are scenes from the OWS encampment .

Again ;too early to know the motivation behind the attack. It is presumptious to think that the movie is related except for the coincidence that there would be a crowd gathered in a confined space after midnight .Best guess is that made it a target of opportunity for someone who wanted to commit mass murder.

Yep, too early for snark Clete. Prayers for the injured and the families would be more appropriate at this point.

We now know the murderous bass turd was a lone gunman named James Holmes ;a 24 year old white man . According to CBS News, authorities have found no evidence to suggest the incident was terrorism-related. Holmes was not on any watch list that could have alerted authorities that he was dangerous, NBC reported. He also has no military history.

But that didn't stop ABC's Brian Ross from suggesting there may have been a link between Holmes and the Tea Party.

Turns out there is a 55 year old guy in Denver also names James Holmes who had joined the TP. Ross and the network has since apologized .

Turns out there are about 12 James Holmes in the area.
My daughter came across this post on Facebook .

Dearest random Facebook people who keep confusing me for a mass murderer and yet still send me Facebook requests.;

I appreciate the fact that you are trying to become better-informed about the occurrences last night in Aurora, but you have been somewhat mislead, in that I am not the man who did it. I am not a 24-year-old gun-slinging killer from Aurora, I am a 22-year-old book-slinging mass eater from Littleton. Somewhat distinct, I would assume. But I would appreciate if you would read this particular post an not assume that it would be interesting to be friends with someone on Facebook who is very probably going to be in jail and not be able to confirm your friend requests anyway, or even be friends with his girlfriend, who had the rather interesting experience of having to tell someone she had a job interview with that she is not, in fact dating a serial killer. James Holmes happens to be a pretty common name, surprisingly, so try not to jump the gun.

Regards, A different guy named James Holmes

It wasn't a matter of if the dinosaur media would jump the gun but when. At least CBS retracted, but that still won't do much to alleviate the harassment this man will likely face anyway.

Speech you think it too soon to snark but this OP is about push factors in society that sets the nuts off, so it's not snarking but saying we need to take a very good look at what we are allowing in the name of art and what these people are attempting to achieve. Don't think I am aloof in this. Some years ago, I had my son riding around the country side on a stolen bike imitating the Terminator, we ultimately had a siege as he played out the phantasies built up from the movies. Other family members still carry the scars of those times.These things are very close to home

As a society we have taken the risk of tragedy in the name of civil liberty .It is too soon to attach a recognizable psycological factor that would've given any indication or forewarning of this mass murder. It is too simple to claim it is a comic book ,or a movie plot ,or some artists music that is the root cause . And what would your prescription be ?

My perscription Tom is to limit access to these presentations in a much more controlled manner. This can be done effectively in theatres but unfortunately once it gets to DVD all control goes out the window so the violent content must be limited at the source. We have to recognise that there are people in our midst who are more affected than most by these presentations and in the public good exercise restraint. I understand that in your society the concept of restraint is somewhat strange to you, like you heard of it but it doesn't apply to you, but one day the penny will drop and you will see you are reaping what you sow

What I understand is that millions of people will watch the movie this weekend and not be affected by it in any way . Whereas a loser who never saw the movie saw a target of opportunity to commit mass murder . In the days ahead we will find out more of this scum . What we will most likely learn is that he did not need a movie as an excuse .

Same old tired argument, it's like guns don't kill people, but in this case they did because they were allowed to get into the hands of a looney and the public were not protected, and get this the guns he had he had legally, which means to me controls are not tight enough there should be psychological examination before you are allowed to own guns. If he only had access to knives he wouldn't have done as much damage, but then I expect he would have settled for a spectacular explosion and where did he get his explosives?

He took on a persona from a movie, Tom, a seriously disturbed persona, and a person who made indiscriminate about use of guns and explosives, perhaps he was waiting for Batman to turn up, so don't tell me he was not affected by the movie, it obviously triggered something. As I said earlier I have personally seen this sort of thing before and the public need to be protected, for the greater good

in this case they did because they were allowed to get into the hands of a looney and the public were not protected,
That's right ;when seconds counted ,the police were minutes away . What good was gun control laws under that scenario ? The police were left to clean up the mess and arrest the killer AFTER the massacre .

No place in America has stricter gun laws than in Chicago ;yet most weekends it resembles the wild west . All the people killed by those illegal guns are still dead .


but then I expect he would have settled for a spectacular explosion and where did he get his explosives?
The Oklahoma City bombing was done with fertilizer. What else do you want to ban ? Guns ,ferilizer , violent movies... what else ? PhD's ?

Seriously Tom I want to ban looney's being able to get their hands on killing weapons and if that means they shut down Chigago and towns like it so be it. The ordinary people don't need guns and the police should be able to prevent criminals getting their hands on guns, explosives, fertilizer, or any other means of mass killing, even if that means you or I might be inconvenienced

The killer's apartment was rigged with explosive devices made of balloons filled with gasoline. I guess those items are on the list too .
You want one I'd go along with? The guy purchased ammo on the internet. That shouldn't happen .

ammo - Walmart.com (http://www.walmart.com/search/search-ng.do?_refineresult=true&search_query=ammo&cat_id=4125_4155)

The National Rifle Association doesn't allow any government common sense bans, restrictions, or limitations on its 2nd amendment rights to bear arms, and plenty of them. This fellow had no prior record of being a loony, so he was entitled to buy a gun, or grenade which any idiot anywhere could purchase.

Whatever triggered him into action should be the real concern.

Whatever triggered him into action should be the real concern

The Dark Knight - Some Men Just Want To Watch The World Burn - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efHCdKb5UWc)

Whatever triggered him into action should be the real concern.

This seems to be the point where I came in, it is a good question and it has to be rooted in the pysho inspired material he obviously became obscessed with.. . Liberty comes with responsibility, and it is not liberty to allow psycho inspired killers to roam free and have over the counter access to guns, explosives, etc. Tom says he shouldn't be able to buy ammunition on the internet, so in effect Tom wants to shut down internet commerce but leave the other businesses that supplied him in place. How does this solve the problem? FYI Tom it doesn't.

In my nation we found a solution to this sort of thing a few years ago, a solution impossible in the US, we removed certain weapons from the hands of the public. Outlawed them, compensated those who had to hand them in and destroyed the weapons, did we remove all guns from society?no, just the automatic, military weapons designed to kill large numbers of humans quickly. Of course we had the will and the desire that these mass killing events should not happen again and they haven't, murder and gun related crime has fallen. There are still hunters in our society, in fact, national parks were recently opened to hunters, but they won't suffer from indiscrimate blasting away with automatic weapons. Time to get real and decide what is important, life and liberty for all, or liberty for the lunatic fringe

Whatever triggered him into action should be the real concern.
But that won't make a hill-of-beans difference in preventing the next shooting.

Yup .you certainly can't blame the movie . 1949 James Cagney played as bad a bad guy as there ever was in White Heat. He literally went out in a ' blaze of glory ' in a shoot out . As he drew his last breath he shouted... "Made it, Ma! Top of the world!" He portrayed a psycho.
James Cagney in White Heat - Top of the World - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjzKiEs_pHI).

Yet no one used the movie as an excuse to shoot up a theater ,or a school . It was not the availabilty of guns that was the deterent back then. It was the character of the civil society that was the deterent .

Yup .you certainly can't blame the movie . 1949 James Cagney played as bad a bad guy as there ever was in White Heat. He literally went out in a ' blaze of glory ' in a shoot out . As he drew his last breath he shouted .... "Made it, Ma! Top of the world!" He portayed a psycho.
James Cagney in White Heat - Top of the World - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjzKiEs_pHI).

Yet no one used the movie as an excuse to shoot up a theater ,or a school . It was not the availabilty of guns that was the deterent back then. It was the character of the civil society that was the deterent .

What you fail to recognise Tom is that cinematic"" ärt"" has changed a great deal since 1949, they have 3D which is mind altering for some and the use of graphics and the score shifts reality for the viewer. There are minds, however immature, that can be influenced to play out the scenario, for them it has becomes reality, if you couple this with drugs, who knows what you get, but a psycho like Holmes is a real possibility.

So to stop this sort of thing two things need to change, first; access to the psychotic depicition of depravity in any form and the glorification of these characterisations and two; access to guns and dangerous substances and yes, petrol should not be sold in containers any more than fertelizer should be sold for non agricultural purposes or gelignite sold to someone off the street or guns made available indiscrinimately. Business for business sake is not a good idea or liberty because it ignores the greater good, which is the protection of the citizens\

And as to the character of civil society, it has degenerated markedly since 1949 and to a stage those who framed your Constitution could not have contemplated. Personally I don't think they had regard for much beyond their own lifetime and circumstance

Let me know when you achieve that sanitized life in a bubble you seek.

I've heard that Switzerland has some of the most sensible gun laws in the world and violent crime is nearly unheard of. Gun control is only one factor however, I've heard that their mandatory military service teaches people discipline and respect for their country and fellow people, maybe America should look to them for ideas on how to prevent violence and teach morals in young people.

I've heard that Switzerland has some of the most sensible gun laws in the world and violent crime is nearly unheard of. Gun control is only one factor however, I've heard that their mandatory military service teaches people discipline and respect for their country and fellow people, maybe America should look to them for ideas on how to prevent violence and teach morals in young people.

Agree but you see that is the sanitised society that Tom and his ilk can't abide, they see it as lacking freedom. America long ago decided that it would go its own way in many respects and now when it hasn't worked out well they don't want to change. Stupid pride stops them

Or you could argue that an armed society is a polite one. Glad you like the Swiss model . The Swiss Confederation developed only a weak central government, leaving most authority in the hands of the cantons or lower levels of government. That was one thing the founders understood ,but we moved away from .

or you could argue that an armed society is a polite one. Glad you like the Swiss model . The Swiss Confederation developed only a weak central government, leaving most authority in the hands of the cantons or lower levels of government. That was one thing the founders understood ,but we moved away from .

Where do you get this B/S? From the NRA? the Swiss society is a polite one not because it is armed but because it has discipline. The Swiss society exists as it does because large parts of the country are cut off for months in winter or used to be, necessity. The US is an armed society and it is not a polite one, in fact the opposite is true, more people incarcarated, more murders and violent behaviour. Do you think there is a correlation between gun ownership and violence? Look at the statistics. In our case, reduced gun ownership, reduced violence, direct correlation and I bet it works the same way in reverse for you

Yeah I'm making it up . The Swiss and Israel both have high legal gun ownership and low murder rates . Chicago and other US cities have strict gun control and high murder rates. London had a relatively low murder rate that began to rise as the Brits made tougher gun control laws .

Gun control is pretty much a settled issue here. President Obama will not make it a political issue. Why ? Well the left says the NRA is so strong a lobby . But the NRA could NOT become a powerful lobby if they did not represent the vast majority opinion in the country.

While most people believe in the 2nd amendment, we can make some common sense changes to keep them out of the hands of the criminals, to keep them out of the wrong hands, like background checks, waiting periods, registration, and complete bans on assault rifles and clips that can make shooting a hundred people in a second possible. Banning the sale of cop killer ammo. And ban reselling guns without a dealer license. How about calling a cop for the buyers who buy heavy rifles by the case?

We can have our rights without the danger to the public by some loony nut case can't we? Or drug dealers? Like I say, common sense.

background checks, waiting periods, registration, and complete bans on assault rifles and clips that can make shooting a hundred people in a second possible. Banning the sale of cop killer ammo. And ban reselling guns without a dealer license. How about calling a cop for the buyers who buy heavy rifles by the case?

With the exception of the outright ban on "assault rifles " ,I could go along with all the other provisions . The founders added the militia clause for a reason ,and that was for the states having the power to 'regulate' the gun market. I for one think internet purchases of ammo should be looked at ;and no one needs 100 round clips for personal defense or hunting .

But ,none of that would've stopped this miscreant from what he did . So looking at gun laws as a panacea is wistful .

I doubt the founders could have imagined a rifle that shot a hundred times, but you are correct I think when you say you can't stop a criminal from doing what he intends to do. Not with a law. Evil finds a way.

I think it appropriate to quote here that great philosopher, Ice-T:


Yeah, it's legal in the United States. It's part of our Constitution. You know, the right to bear arms is because that's the last form of defense against tyranny.

Tyranny is such a problem in this country. So glad I have a bunch of untrained, unregulated gun owners protecting me from it.

That'll be an interesting moment in your history when american citizens start shooting at government employees. Just like in some African countries.

Yeah you are surrounded by them in a city with one of the toughest gun laws in th nation. Good thing they are regulated in Chi-town.

That'll be an interesting moment in your history when american citizens start shooting at government employees. Just like in some African countries.

Yeah that could never happen in Canada
http://news.sympatico.ctvnews.ca/canada/toronto_police_probe_three_shootings_in_24_hours/7abffc18

Yeah that could never happen in Canada
Toronto police probe three shootings in 24 hours | Sympatico.ca News (http://news.sympatico.ctvnews.ca/canada/toronto_police_probe_three_shootings_in_24_hours/7abffc18)
That has nothing at all to do with what I wrote. Nice try though.

So you guys don't understand the concept of deterrence.

Evil doesn't care about deterence. Deterence only works on those with a conscious.

Ok.

Here's a great idea (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/hizzoner_striking_idea_for_police_OqzoiT1wjZqr4eTS N7zpzI#ixzz21Yhr6YUm)... Bloomberg thinks cops should go on strike nationwide until they get gun control.


“I don’t understand why police officers across this country don’t stand up collectively and say we’re going to go on strike, we’re not going to protect you unless you, the public, through your legislature, do what’s required to keep us safe,’’ he told CNN’s Piers Morgan.

Um, and then we would need guns even more.

Amazing .NYC has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation ;and yet he still thinks there is a need to have a stop and frisk policy in the inner city to intercept "illegal "guns .What would change with more regulation?

Their would be less assault weapons and copkiller bullets on the streets.

Maybe the cops should go on strike since it's their lives on the line.

Here are the Nationwide stats for this year :
21 of the 53 officers who died in the first half of 2012 were killed in traffic related incidents
19 were shot to death, down 50 percent from last year.
13 officers died due to other causes.
The stats don't specify the type of gun used in the cop killings. Most likely they were hand held pistols .

Their would be less assault weapons and copkiller bullets on the streets.

maybe the cops should go on strike since its their lives on the line.

So you're for anarchy.

P.S. It's MY life and YOUR life on the line, too if the cops disappear. Besides the fact that cops typically can't go on strike that's a stupid idea.

Then tell your congressman you want some common sense restrictions and regulations that helps the cops do their job safely!

You can still hunt bambi without an assault rifle or hollow point bullets that penetrate a kevlar vest can't you? When is it anarchy to support a cop huh? Or a cop to support himself because you don't?

If the cops strike anarchy is what you'll get. You said you support a strike, you're going to get anarchy if that happens. And as tom showed, guns don't seem to be the cops' main problem, it's vehicles.

Tom is wrong. So are the stop and frisk freaks!

If you protect your local cop, he won't need to go on strike... DUH!!

Tom is wrong. So are the stop and frisk freaks!!

If you protect your local cop, he won't need to go on strike..................DUH!!!!

Let me make it simple for you.

Tal: "maybe the cops should go on strike since its their lives on the line."

What would be the consequences of that?

If you protect your local cop, he won't need to go on strike..................DUH!!!!

How am I wrong ? I quoted actual stats ,and have already told you that I favor some of the restrictions you suggested ;and one I suggested that you didn't think of ,which was key to the Aurora case.

If you protect your local cop, he won't need to go on strike..................DUH!!!!

That's another dodge.

That's another dodge.That's all the Current Events board is - dodging and emotionally charged posts. You new here? LOL.

As me a question, I'll answer it.

People wondering how this miscreant got the money to purchase weapons ,ammo ,and body armor now have their answer ;Uncle Sam footed the bill.

He was awarded a $26,000 grant to study neuroscience at the University of Colorado ;and had his tuition paid for.

Weeks before the shooting ;he had taken what is described as an "intense oral exam" . The University to date has not disclosed the results of this exam... but something prompted him to abruptly quit the program.

http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/simgad/10780117959542707630

Why is AMHD allowing campaign ads on this board ?

Why is AMHD allowing campaign ads on this board ?use Firefox with AdBlock - you'll never see ads.

He was awarded a $26,000 grant to study neuroscience at the University of Colorado ;and had his tuition paid for. Hello tom:

Well, there you go.. All we got to do is stop writing checks. Problem solved.

How did I know this would be the government's fault?? Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

use Firefox with AdBlock - you'll never see ads.

That wasn't my question. Am I to conclude that AMHD is taking a position on the Presidential contest by the ads they allow ?

Ex ,I heard the question asked :where did he get the money " ? I was answering the question. Out in the web ,the conspiracy theories are being floated .

Hey the position is ! Now about the problem which is arms in the possession of miscreants has to be addressed why are you held captive by the NRA, by the right wing?

That wasn't my question. Am I to conclude that AMHD is taking a position on the Presidential contest by the ads they allow ?I assume they signed up with a service that provides ads and AMHD gets paid on clickthroughs. They are in they full right to do this. You have options which websites to use of course. Vote with your feet! :-)

Hello again, tom:

I don't know if you answered the question or made an ideological complaint. Do you KNOW if he had ANY other sources of income?? No, you don't.. Maybe his GRANDMA sent him $5,000. I think SHE should be brought up on charges...

Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

The NRA only has influence because the vast majority of Americans agree with them .

Ex I don't speculate.. I only provided known sources of revenue.

The NRA has influence because they bought and paid for it

Nope... if the Dems saw they could make hay by running on an anti-gun policy they would . Instead you have Obama tip toeing around tougher regulations ,and before him you had Kerry dressing like Elmer Fudd to prove he is a man of the people. In the last election you had Dem Sen Joe Manchin taking target practice with a high powered rifle (maybe an assault ?) in a very effective campaign ad. The only ones who make a strong statement for gun control are the ones that are in safe liberal districts. The NRA could only exist as a major influencing force if they did not reflect a vast majority opinion.

The NRA only has influence because the vast majority of Americans agree with them .
Correction: white American males

FRom your hometown news paper :


The online survey showed that 68 percent, or two out of three respondents, had a favorable opinion of the NRA, which starts its annual convention in St. Louis, Missouri, on Friday.

Eighty-two percent of Republicans saw the gun lobbying group in a positive light as well as 55 percent of Democrats, findings that run counter to the perception of Democrats as anti-NRA.

Most Americans back gun lobby, right to use deadly force - Chicago Tribune (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-04-13/news/sns-rt-us-usa-guns-pollbre83c0g4-20120413_1_deadly-force-gun-rights-gun-lobby)

FRom your hometown news paper
Who actually responded?

According to Reuters, 1,922 people were surveyed.

Yeah most surveys and polls are about that number or less.

Yeah most surveys and polls are about that number or less.
Why am I not doing cartwheels? And it wasn't random. It played to the gun-owner audience.

Oh I get it . The people vote in Reps who cowtow to the interests of the NRA instead of the will of the people who elected them ;and knowing that ,the people reelect these Reps who don't serve their interests .

Why am I not doing cartwheels? And it wasn't random. It played to the gun-owner audience.
You might have a case here.

1289 Caucasians, 219 African Americans and 267 Hispanics.

The people vote in Reps who cowtow to the interests of the NRA instead of the will of the people who elected themHello again, tom:

You're got it right. The people can only vote for candidates who can afford to run... Before Citizens United, the PEOPLE had a say in WHO that was. Since, Citizens United, the wealthy special interests are the ones who have a say.

The NRA is a wealthy special interest. That's why you saw some Democratics line up behind the right wingers to find Eric Holder in contempt of congress over Fast & Furious. They were from a SWING districts, and if they DON'T toe the NRA line, they'll be PRIMARYIED. You know that. I know that. EVERYBODY knows that.

NONE of that has anything to do with the "will of the people"..

excon

Before Citizens United, the PEOPLE had a say in WHO that was. ummm I do believe that the NRA predates Citizens United by a number of years .


They were from a SWING districts OK then ;so swing districts and districts that lean Republican all vote for candidates that agree with the NRA. That leaves ONLY safe liberal districts... a distinct minority... Sort of proves my point that the NRA represents the majority view in the country .

You might have a case here.

You left out this part :

1,922 Americans was interviewed online, including 650 Republicans, 752 Democrats, 520 Independents, 1289 Caucasians, 219 African Americans and 267 Hispanics.

The poll conducted counted more Dems . And in either case ,it was an overwhelmingly lopsided result in favor of gun rights.

Like all issues it depends on how you frame the question because like you Tom, most of the public favors common sense restrictions and regulations.

But the NRA makes a point to publicly let congress know that anything they don't like will be punished. And they keep score. They have effectively punked the democrats, all of them, top to bottom.

you left out this part :

1,922 Americans was interviewed online, including 650 Republicans, 752 Democrats, 520 Independents, 1289 Caucasians, 219 African Americans and 267 Hispanics.

The poll conducted counted more Dems . and in either case ,it was an overwhelmingly lopsided result in favor of gun rights.
And tell how the "interview" was set up.

I love it . When polls favor the liberal position they are exhibited as gospel truth . But when they don't ;clearly the methodology is flawed .
You wonder why I rarely quote polls ?

My point is this ;and in this case there is no other evidence besides polling data ;it would;ve been impossible for the NRA to retain it's influence on the body politic if not for majority support.

I love it . When polls favor the liberal position they are exhibited as gospel truth . But when they don't ;clearly the methodology is flawed .
You wonder why I rarely quote polls?
If a poll is flawed, no matter who did it, I will scream. You have one in mind?

If a poll is flawed, no matter who did it, I will scream. You have one in mind?

http://www.examiner.com/article/nbc-news-todd-admits-they-over-polled-dems-by-11-points-to-favor-obama-1?cid=rss

It happens routinely... this one they got called out on.

Bloomy... "oh you thought I meant it literally ? "
Mayor Michael Bloomberg On CNN's Piers Morgan Tonight: Police Officers Should Go On Strike To Get Lawmakers To Crack Down on Gun Control CBS New York (http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/07/24/bloomberg-police-officers-should-go-on-strike-to-prompt-action-on-gun-control/)

Many law enforcement bodies have called for gun control over the years. Nobody is listening to them, obviously. Not even when a nut case makes one helluva case for it, or the reasonable gun owners support it.

NBC News? Todd admits they over-polled Dems by 11 points to favor Obama - National Political Buzz | Examiner.com (http://www.examiner.com/article/nbc-news-todd-admits-they-over-polled-dems-by-11-points-to-favor-obama-1?cid=rss)

It happens routinely ... this one they got called out on.
The majority of polls are flawed for all sorts of reasons. That's why I don't even consider them as being anything serious.

Many law enforcement bodies have called for gun control over the years. Nobody is listening to them, obviously. Not even when a nut case makes one helluva case for it, or the reasonable gun owners support it.

Bloomy bans soda and salt... He is not the best spokesman for the cause. In fact ,one could argue that he's a nut case . Chris Christie had a better perspective . Christie said, “I like to keep a respectful distance on these things early – I don't want to seem like a politician who is trying to capitalize on tragedy - and I think we have too many of those.”....” it's not just Senator Lautenberg who's done this, but there have been others – lets leave a bit of a respectful distance between these people being murdered in the movie theater to try to make a political issue of it – I just think its wrong…I'm with the President and Governor Romney on this – I don't think we should be talking about it now.”

Colorado has conceal and carry laws. But ,the victims were in a theater that was a declared "gun-free zone" ,so no one in the theater was armed . In that example we have a pattern. Va.Tech was also a gun-free campus.

Well he might be a respectfull distance but Obama made it clear where he stood, military style weapons don't belong in the community and he said it often enough to suggest it might become a part of a platform. Now if you don't have a need for a Malitia because you have both a standing army and the National Guard and you don't have a need for military weaponsin the community the second amendment starts to have a hollow ring and you should question whether gun ownership actually has a purpose

Yes ;he'd rather they are in Mexican communities.

The NRA are out of touch with most people and even with most gun owners. I have a book about the 1980 U.S. election called "Watershed" and there was a line saying that over 60 percent of Americans support registering handguns.

The1980 U.S. election called "Watershed" and there was a line saying that over 60 percent of Americans support registering handguns.

That is a big difference to assault weapons

1980 was 33 years ago . But still ,if the % is still at that rate ,it supports my point. Nowhere in the country is there a place where legal handguns aren't registered . If the NRA opposed handgun registration ,and the people support it ;their representatives have listened to the people ,and not the "powerful gun lobby" .

It is said the NRA is the third political party in the US, so Tom do you really believe that if the people wanted proper gun control they could get it

Of course they would ! The NRA takes the position that registration is the 1st step towards confiscation. They are not wrong in that concern . If they had their way ,there would be no registration.However ,there is not a place in this country that doesn't have some form of registration .That is because the people think it's reasonable. So yes ,the people's concerns outweigh the NRA political influence .

I think there will be additional steps taken in the wake of this ;as far as backround checks ,and perhaps internet purchases.

1980 was 33 years ago . But still ,if the % is still at that rate ,it supports my point. Nowhere in the country is there a place where legal handguns aren't registered . If the NRA opposed handgun registration ,and the people support it ;their representatives have listened to the people ,and not the "powerful gun lobby" .

Have to correct you on that, we don't register handguns in Texas. We don't register rifles or shotguns either. And we're darn proud of it.

Hello Steve:

It's just like Texas to THREATEN its visitors... That's why I'll NEVER go.. I'm from a place like this... That's why I'm so wonderful..

excon

You do know of course I'm just confirming your wildest fears about our state. Wild west, lawless frontier, clueless hicks all packing heat and ready to execute you for possession of marihoochie and all that.

The real sign...

P.S. Colorado probably gets most of its tourism dollars from Texas, but they aren't that friendly. In fact Colorado, while a beautiful state itself, reminds me of Oklahoma with mountains. Lots and lots of decrepit mobile homes with rusty vehicles in the yard souring the landscape.

More proof that 2nd amendment rights is a settled issue.
White House gives cool welcome to bill restricting online ammo sales | The Ticket - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/white-house-gives-cool-welcome-bill-restricting-online-182934423.html)

more proof that 2nd amendment rights is a settled issue.
White House gives cool welcome to bill restricting online ammo sales | The Ticket - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/white-house-gives-cool-welcome-bill-restricting-online-182934423.html)

What a surprise. Another junk piece of legislation to restrict rights of citizens. Many states don't have gun registration. And that is a good thing. This with ammunition sales is just insane. How far do they want to go? Will those that reload be exempt because they are not actually buying bullets? The idiots don't seem to want to take responsibility for action just create crap as a reaction.

Its typical politics of the day.

Small progress but progress nonetheless

small progress but progress nonetheless

What exactly are you referring to because this bill is actually a step backward. And its going to have much greater implications then you can imagine if it is enacted.

What should be done about the psychos who want to kill as many as they can?

What should be done about the psychos who want to kill as many as they can?

Treat them as such. This was an isolated incident in a gun restricted zone. There is no doubt the guy was a nutjob. Had more people had a clue earlier on the whole thing would have been avoided. The drawings they found "after" the shooting indicate this was a disturbed person. But the person that was in charge of looking at it didn't bother until after it happened. Had the system been proactive it may have been prevented.

How many rounds of ammo do you really think it takes to kill someone? So its not really about that. Its about restricting the recreational shooter who participates in events or wants to target shoot to maintain a good site picture from doing what is best.

If you restrict owners from being able to practice at will then what your really doing is endangering innocent lives. To me that's a bad call anyday. A responsible gun owner knows and should be familier with the weapon they are going to shoot. A crisis is never a good time to learn something new.

Had the system been proactive it may have been prevented.
But what about his rights? He had no priors. What could his therapist have done?

But what about his rights? He had no priors. What could his therapist have done?

There is a fine line when dealing with the rights of the mentally unstable. Had the therapist put him under watch for a 72 hr period then his name may have made it into the system and he wouldn't be buying guns (atleast in the usual legal manner) and that may have ended the cycle by getting him the help before he had done the deed.

I thought he had been stockpiling guns and ammo for months before this, so the system wouldn't have caught him in a 72-hour watch (unless they would have searched his apartment). And the mentally ill are very convincing liars and very devious cons.

Heard Professor Richard Epstein of NYU law yesterday . He said that prohibitions on firearms will shift the ratio of guns held in lawful and unlawful hands to favor the latter. Potential criminals, knowing that they are less likely to meet armed resistance will, on average, be more willing to commit violent offenses.

Heard Professor Richard Epstein of NYU law yesterday . He said that prohibitions on firearms will shift the ratio of guns held in lawful and unlawful hands to favor the latter. Potential criminals, knowing that they are less likely to meet armed resistance will, on average, be more willing to commit violent offenses.

Tom these arguments aren't borne out in reality. I live in a society where gun ownership is not the norm, yes there is a criminal element, not local but recent immigrant who display what we consider to be an extraordinary tendency to violence and gun usage, however they harm each other and rarely the ordinary citizen who go about their daily business without being confronted by criminals with guns. The reasons behind their crime is not the availability of guns in the community but the trauma of war and displacement and the result of gun violence. What is apparent from the american experience is that the higher level of gun availability has lead to a greater perpensity for violence which inevietably leads to greater usage of guns in crime.

A mature society doesn't need gun ownership to solve its problems

I thought he had been stockpiling guns and ammo for months before this, so the system wouldn't have caught him in a 72-hour watch (unless they would have searched his apartment). And the mentally ill are very convincing liars and very devious cons.

So your trying to say no one noticed this persons condition at any time and he never raised any red flags the whole time he was planning things?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57480221/police-find-disturbing-mail-from-colo-suspect/?tag=contentMain;contentBody

AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN (http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847)


The 1996-97 National Firearms Agreement (NFA) in Australia introduced strict gun
Laws, primarily as a reaction to the mass shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania in 1996,
Where 35 people were killed. Despite the fact that several researchers using the same
Data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not
Appear to have been reached. In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm
Deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means
To identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did
Not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates.
http://www.ssaa.org.au/capital-news/2008/2008-09-04_melbourne-uni-paper-Aust-gun-buyback.pdf


under the 1996 National Firearms Agreement (NFA) these were all but banned. At huge cost, the government bought from their owners some 650,000 of the newly prohibited guns, which police destroyed. It also implemented mandatory gun licenses and registration of all firearms, helping to restrict to 5% of the population the number of Australian adults who owned or used guns last year, down from 7% in 1996.

But these changes have done nothing to reduce gun-related deaths, according to Samara McPhedran, a University of Sydney academic and coauthor of a soon-to-be-published paper that reviews a selection of previous studies on the effects of the 1996 legislation. The conclusions of these studies were "all over the place," says McPhedran. But by pulling back and looking purely at the statistics, the answer "is there in black and white," she says. "The hypothesis that the removal of a large number of firearms owned by civilians [would lead to fewer gun-related deaths] is not borne out by the evidence.": Australia's Gun Laws: Little Effect - TIME (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html#ixzz22Hfx0ePW)

AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN (http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847)

.
http://www.ssaa.org.au/capital-news/2008/2008-09-04_melbourne-uni-paper-Aust-gun-buyback.pdf

: Australia's Gun Laws: Little Effect - TIME (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html#ixzz22Hfx0ePW)



Tom, you know what is going to happen when it comes to the end of this discussion?

It will go very badly for you.

Tut

Tom, you know what is going to happen when it comes to the end of this discussion?

It will go very badly for you.

Tut

Don't worry Tut some people like to trot out selective statistics, but I wonder has anyone corrolated gun crime in Australia with the arrival of certain ethnic groups from war torn countries, such as Iraq, Lebanon, Sri Lanka, Vietnam. If you observe the detail of reports on violent crime and drugs you find a predominance of such peoples. I agree criminals will find and use weapons one way or another, but that is no reason why we should allow vigilantism in our society. For the vast majority of our population, violent crime is something that happens to someoneelse, I wonder if the americans can say the same and with more than 2% of their population incarcerated I think we could say their experiement has failed

Oh I see... in this case using culture as a definer is perfectly acceptable. If that is the determining factor then I'd have to say there is no homgeniousness here .


Don't worry Tut some people like to trot out selective statistics,
I'm confronted with that all the time. Like when some try to prove that banning guns will prevent gun crimes .

I agree criminals will find and use weapons one way or another, but that is no reason why we should allow vigilantism in our society. You call it vigilantism .I call it the right to self defense. Law abiding people will of course register and or hand in gun when compelled by the state... the predatory criminal is a different story.
Here is a stat. Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the US .It also has one of the highest murder rates in the nation.

Like when some try to prove that banning guns will prevent gun crimes.
All guns should be destroyed and plastic butter knives handed out to anyone who wants a weapon. And women should be in charge.

All guns should be destroyed and plastic butter knives handed out to anyone who wants a weapon. And women should be in charge.

The true nanny state

the true nanny state
And the men will live longer and be healthier for it.

And the men will live longer and be healthier for it.

I doubt it, men do not flourish in a feminine bureaucracy

I doubt it, men do not flourish in a feminine bureaucracy
Not to worry. We have a plan.

Not to worry. We have a plan.

And a diabolical plan it is too, however we will not be slaves

Not to worry. We have a plan.Hello again, Carol:

This plan?

Hello again, Carol:

This plan?
Dear excon:

I was thinking of a stud corral, but you're on the right track.

WG

Naughty girl