If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…

On July 23 2012 17:34 GwSC wrote:


The problem is the US is about 20x the population of your country, and already has a HUGE amount of guns floating around, both legally owned and illegal. Tight gun control wouldn't have the same effect. There is a pretty strong link between poverty and crime, and since guns are so widely available here it makes the problem worse. It just isn't realistic to take the guns out of everyone's hands at this point. We really just need to work on our societal problems, and if we are able to do this successfully we would have more productive, happy citizens without needing to take away rights. Sounds win-win to me

On July 23 2012 17:22 StarStrider wrote:
Hmm, I'm realizing that part of the problem in this discussion is there is a disconnection in base philosophy for those on one side of the argument... one side thinks that giving government more power to regulate and control our daily lives can't be anything but a good thing... this side believes that every day people shouldn't or can't be trusted with the grave responsibility of owning a firearm.... believes that big daddy government can be trusted to handle deadly force, but ordinary citizens are basically just immature children or barbaric animals, too stupid to understand the power or too prone to emotional outburst to use it properly. Or in their mind, every gun owner neccessarily thinks ignorant thoughts about guns like they do: as if in the mind of the gun owner they are living out some egotistical fantasy pretending that they are Segal or Eastwood. They aren't willing to look at the practical benefits of private firearm ownership, and the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of properly trained, responsible carriers. Apparently everyone in the government and police and military are simply too holy and educated to ever make mistakes or fall to human corruption and can be trusted with deadly force, but citizens with the same average intelligence and physical attributes as members of the government and police and military must be collosal dumbfucks because they aren't in position of authority.

DENVER — In a world where Amazon can track your next book purchase and you must show ID to buy some allergy medicine, James Holmes spent months stockpiling thousands of bullets and head-to-toe ballistic gear without raising any red flags with authorities.

The suspect in the mass theater shooting availed himself of an unregulated online marketplace that allows consumers to acquire some of the tools of modern warfare as if they were pieces of a new wardrobe. The Internet is awash in sites ranging from BulkAmmo.com, which this weekend listed a sale on a thousand rifle rounds for $335, to eBay, where bidding on one armored special forces helmet has risen to $799.

"We're different than other cultures," said Dudley Brown, executive director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, which advocates for firearms owners' rights. "We do allow Americans to possess the accoutrements that our military generally has."

Gun rights activists like Brown celebrate that freedom, but even some involved in the trade are troubled by how easily Holmes stocked up for his alleged rampage.

Chad Weinman runs TacticalGear.com, which caters to police officers looking to augment their equipment, members of the military who don't want to wait on permission from the bureaucracy for new combat gear, and hobbyists like survivalists and paintballers. The site receives "thousands" of orders daily, sometimes from entire platoons that are about to deploy to war zones.

On July 2, Holmes placed a $306 order with the site for a combat vest, magazine holders and a knife, paying extra for expedited two-day shipping to his Aurora apartment. The order, Weinman said, didn't stand out.

"There's a whole range of consumers who have an appetite for these products, and 99.9 percent of them are law-abiding citizens," Weinman said. But he said that "it makes me sick" that Holmes bought material from him. He added that he doesn't sell guns or ammunition and that he was "shocked" at the amount of bullets that Holmes allegedly bought online.

Authorities say all of Holmes' purchases were legal -- and there is no official system to track whether people are stockpiling vast amounts of firepower.

There is no restriction on the sale of bullets in the United States, except for armor-piercing rounds, which can only be bought by law enforcement, said Ginger Colbrun, a spokeswoman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Hence the proliferation of websites offering Amazon.com-style wish-lists for hollow-point rifle rounds or tracer bullets.


There is a federal law that bars selling body armor to violent felons -- which Holmes was not -- but it is rarely used because there are is no requirement to check whether purchasers of the material have criminal records, according to Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence.

Over four months, authorities said, Holmes received more than 50 packages at his Aurora apartment and the University of Colorado medical school, where he was studying neuroscience. As the boxes piled up, he began to shop for guns at sporting goods stores -- because of the need to pass a background check to buy a firearm, they are still generally bought at brick-and-mortar locations.

On May 22, law enforcement officials said Holmes bought a Glock pistol. Less than a week later, he upgraded to a shotgun. The following week he bought an AR-15 rifle, versions of which had been outlawed under the assault weapon ban in 1994. But that prohibition expired in 2004 and Congress, in a nod to the political clout of gun enthusiasts, did not renew it.

Holmes also acquired explosive materials and equipment to rig his entire apartment with a complex series of booby traps that took authorities days to dismantle. Officials have not said how he obtained the material for the devices.

Holmes capped off his gun purchases with another pistol on July 7. Authorities say that, 12 days later, Holmes bought a ticket to the midnight premiere of the Batman movie "The Dark Knight Rises" and entered the theater with the crowd, then slipped out the side door and returned dressed for battle.

Oates said the shooter wore a ballistic helmet, gas mask, throat-protector, tactical vest and pants -- such complete protective gear that responding officers almost mistook him for a member of the SWAT team. He lobbed gas canisters at the crowd, then opened fire. By the time police arrived, 90 seconds later, Holmes had shot dozens of people because his rifle was modified with a high-powered drum magazine that allowed him to fire immense amounts of bullets without reloading. "It was a pretty rapid pace of fire in that theater," Oates said.

The high-capacity magazine had also been prohibited under the assault weapon ban, and even though the federal law expired a few states outlaw the devices. Colorado, which has relatively permissive gun laws, does not.

Colorado State Senator John Morse, a Democrat, said he wished the state barred large-capacity magazines and guns like the AR-15, but he does not expect the attack to make that likely. "The NRA has managed to convince the country that this has to happen to protect our Second Amendment rights," Morse said. "As long as we let people buy these guns, we will bury our children."

Rep Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), whose husband was killed in a mass shooting on the Long Island Railroad in 1993, has proposed a ban on high-capacity magazines in Congress but acknowledges it has little chance of passage. She said she was horrified by the shooting but most shocked by the other material that Holmes allegedly accumulated -- the bullets and combat gear.

"It befuddles me to think those things should be sold to the general public," she said.

Colorado State Rep. Mark Waller cautioned against trying to limit purchases of ammunition. He noted that Holmes reportedly bought 300 rounds for his shotgun. "My 13-year-old son and I go out to the shooting range all the time," said Waller, a Republican. "I buy more than 300 rounds of shotgun shells when I do that."

He said there may be discussion of limiting the sale of the sort of protective clothing that Holmes allegedly donned. "Is that what the right to bear arms means, that you can purchase tactical gear to stop law enforcement from preventing you from perpetrating a crime?" Waller asked. "In the days and weeks to come, this is going to be a significant conversation."

But gun enthusiasts caution against over-reacting to the massacre. Brown, of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, said he thinks citizen's access to weaponry has made the United States "a stronger country." And he doesn't see anything unusual about many of Holmes' alleged purchases.

"If I only had 6,000 rounds for my AR-15s, I'd literally feel naked," Brown said. Then he totaled up Holmes' firearms purchases: "Two handguns, a shotgun and a rifle. That's the average male in Colorado."

On July 24 2012 04:42 Rassy wrote:
Defacer Canada. July 24 2012 04:32. Posts 3248

He said there may be discussion of limiting the sale of the sort of protective clothing that Holmes allegedly donned. "Is that what the right to bear arms means, that you can purchase tactical gear to stop law enforcement from preventing you from perpetrating a crime?" Waller asked. "In the days and weeks to come, this is going to be a significant conversation."

Now that would be something.
Keeping in the guns but banning the gear that protects against them.
Its the world upside down.

On July 23 2012 17:13 Rannasha wrote:


Regular criminals don't have guns in my country. With decent gun control, it's difficult even for criminals to acquire a gun. They need connections to organized crime as well as a decent amount of money (illegal guns are expensive when there aren't any legal guns). Your everyday smalltime criminal will have neither. Most criminals with guns are in organized crime groups that seem to primarily use the guns on eachother.

Regular burglars emphasize stealth. They're in and out before you know what happened. And if they hear any sounds that indicate that you may be at home / awake, they will flee. Someone being injured or killed by a burglar is extremely rare in the Netherlands.

On July 24 2012 04:56 Figgy wrote:


Same also applies to Canada. I'm in a city with 2 million people and I don't even need to lock my door, let alone worry about someone entering my house with a gun.

Never had a single armed house robbery in over 20 years, it's nice when the criminals don't actually have weapons isn't it?

Also, the ones that actually do try to break and enter flee the second they realize someone is home. Not many people break into houses with the intent to kill someone.

On July 23 2012 21:30 KingLol wrote:


This is quite inaccurate actually. Drugs smuggled into the USA (and other countries) are often manufactured in Central & South American countries, whereas firearms and ammunition are often manufactured in North America and Europe. This situation requires prospective gun smugglers to buy the weapons and then smuggle them back into the USA. Given that the profit margin on guns is far lower than drugs (and also taking into account that guns are not consumables which require a constant supply) it doesn't take a genius to realise that smuggling guns is a far less attractive option.

Funnily enough, the smuggling situation is actually the reverse at the moment: Mexican cartels and gangs are smuggling bullets into Mexico from the USA!

On July 24 2012 04:51 ImAbstracT wrote:


None of the gear he had was able to protect him from a bullet. That "bullet proof vest" was just a mag carrying vest. The other protectors can help against blunt impacts and knife edges, but not firearms. It was all for looks and the "fear factor". Once again, the media has no idea what they are talking about.

Also, if someone calls an AR-15 an assault rifle and a magazine a clip again I will pistol whip them for their stupidity. Don't talk about something you know nothing about.

On July 24 2012 04:51 ImAbstracT wrote:


None of the gear he had was able to protect him from a bullet. That "bullet proof vest" was just a mag carrying vest. The other protectors can help against blunt impacts and knife edges, but not firearms. It was all for looks and the "fear factor". Once again, the media has no idea what they are talking about.

Also, if someone calls an AR-15 an assault rifle and a magazine a clip again I will pistol whip them for their stupidity. Don't talk about something you know nothing about.

"If I only had 6,000 rounds for my AR-15s, I'd literally feel naked," Brown said. Then he totaled up Holmes' firearms purchases: "Two handguns, a shotgun and a rifle. That's the average male in Colorado."

On July 24 2012 06:05 ReachTheSky wrote:
People act as if guns kill people. People kill people. People don't even need guns to do this. Hell, should we start making the possession of pencils illegal if someone goes on a mass stabbing with pencils? Seriously, its all about the people, nothing to do with guns.

On July 24 2012 06:05 ReachTheSky wrote:
People act as if guns kill people. People kill people. People don't even need guns to do this. Hell, should we start making the possession of pencils illegal if someone goes on a mass stabbing with pencils? Seriously, its all about the people, nothing to do with guns.

On July 24 2012 05:23 m4inbrain wrote:


Youre a huge wise-ass, you know that right? Also, youre wrong. Which actually is easy to read up on, just take a look at the californian 89 assault weapon ban, also the 2000 assault weapon ban. Guess which rifle was classified as assault rifle? They even banned the AR-15 specifically by name in both laws. So does wikipedia, and alot of gun-sites i just looked up.

But im curious, how do you call a full auto rifle which can be equipped with drum-mags?

On July 23 2012 15:40 white_horse wrote:
The only way to change public attitude towards guns and to change gun right nutjobs from their desire to loosen gun laws is for more incidents such as this one, where they can see with their own eyes how much damage could have been prevented by common sense laws such as the ammunition sales limits, requiring people to report assault rifle purchases, making it harder to buy weapons online, etc etc. It sounds very sad, but this is probably the only way for gun right supporters to realize how dangerous their desires are to society. How can any reasonable person believe that buying an assault rifle online is as easy as buying a book on amazon is a good idea? The unreasonable ones think its ok.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/23/us/online-ammunition-sales-highlighted-by-aurora-shootings.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp



How can gun right advocates talk about "self-defense" and "public safety" when a police commissioner has the exact opposite idea of safety from them?

On July 24 2012 06:12 Defacer wrote:


Then you get stupid arguments like this, that insist that guns and pencils are equivalent.

I would love to see someone sit with one of the vicitim's families from Colorado, and explain that guns are no different from pencils.

On July 24 2012 06:36 whatevername wrote:
No, rather the explanation is that you cant account for the mentally insane and psychopathic with the control of any dangerous substance. illegal or easy to get hes going to do as he plans, he wont be dissuaded by some naive little "pweeze dont have guns :3" by the police.