idk how recent, but she moved to there when she got a job in the denver area. she dragged her boyfriend to the movie...he was wounded though...and probably scarred for life seeing his girlfriend shot.

yea a law needs to be passed about semi automatic or automatic guns. there is no need for the general public to have it for protection or hunting. and, maybe a law for gun stores to catalog who buys a gun/ammo. if they buy a lot of said item then a red flag should/will pop up.

also to how did he get tear gas? is that illegal?

He did not possess any automatic weapons.

correct, he had an ar-15 semi-auto which at this point was said to be left in the car, although when these things happen it usually takes a few days for all the details to be cleared up. let me start off by saying what happened is terrible and makes no sense. the problem that i have with this sort of thing is that after these things happen the blame is always shifted somewhere else rather than where it belongs, on the individual.

its either the guns laws, violent video games, no love as a child, always something. now theres an arguement that without the guns this wouldnt have happened. thats true to an extent but this guy was very smart and the fact remains that if someone is dead set on killing people, its gonna happen. look at his apartment, wired with bombs/booby traps and you cant buy them at a store. same goes for the body armour he was wearing, thats highly restricted.

now on to the issue of gun laws/reasons for wanting to own a gun. growing up with my parents , who are about as anti-gun as you can get im able to look at things from both sides. i also spend alot of time in west virginia where gun laws are not nearly as strict as new jersey, yet for some reason they dont have nearly the same amount of gun crime per capita. i just find it weird that states with the most strict gun laws such as illinois, california, and new jersey have way higher crime levels than states like vermont, new hampshire or alaska.

now part of the reason for this could be due to the high numbers of urban areas in cali ect but its still weird.another issue i would like to address is this notion that if guns were severly restricted that gun crime would just dry up. that couldnt be further from the truth. #1 criminals dont follow laws anyways so they dont listen to said laws and it takes gun out of the hands of law abiding people. #2 just because something is agaist the law doesnt make it disappear, just look at the drug war.

i also wanted to say something to people who say that there is no reason to have these kinds of weapons. the media coined the term "assault rifle" during clintons time in office and applied it to many civilian weapons. that is a false term as a true assault rifle is a selective fire weapon with a burst or fully automatic capability and the avalability of these types of weapons is severly restricted for ordinary people.

to the people who say there is no need to have such weapons, i say target shooting is a lot of fun, especially with semi auto rifles as it cuts down on reloading. ive had many great afternoons shooting with friends and we never had anything go wrong nor have any of my friends ever shot anybody which leads to my next point.

if we want to create laws everytime somebody does something crazy, pretty soon everything will be illegal. its that old saying dont let one bad apple spoil the whole bunch. i also find it a little weird that something like this happens a little more than a week before our great leader is set to attend the UN meeting on gun control. hope thats just a horrible coincidence.

thanks for letting me share my opinion guys, and if you disagree with me thats fine just thought that i would share my own opinion on this situation.

Oh please. Like we all don't know this guy is guilty.

I'm all for "due process." But my guess is, even after that, you'd still be against the guy being executed. Even though you know, just like I do, that he's guilty.

And that's assuming some slick, soulless, defense attorney doesn't get him off on an insanity plea. And even if that doesn't happen, he'll probably be given life in prison, which means the state gets to pay for his room and board for the rest of his life.

That isn't justice.

I don't care what the correct gun name is, but anything that is capable of firing dozens of rounds within 60 seconds should be classified as "automatic", IMO. The only reason for a weapon to do that is to kill as many humans as possible. And there's no reason for any civilian to own one.

I'm certainly not against responsible gun ownership. I believe that if you want a gun for hunting or home protection, there is no reason for a law-abiding citizen not to be able to purchase one under strict supervision, with proper guidelines and waiting periods.

However, when one person buys four weapons and 6,000 rounds of ammunition in a short amount of time, I'm pretty sure the only reason for that would be to slaughter people. It baffles me that he could do all the preparation for the other night without raising red flags.

I agree SB but any kind of rules/changes/requirements and people will scream about "2nd amendment rights". NOBODY'S suggesting taking guns away, BUT it plays well politically and people buy into it.

I am amazed that people don't think a little more caution/background checks, and whatever other precautions gun/ammo sellers can make is a bad thing. Recently I read one state allowed guns in bars (don't care if it's a bar that serves food)? Does it take a freekin' genius to conclude that's a bad idea?




TIS

Is a semi automatic different from an automatic? According to this he had a semi automatic weapon that jammed. AND what would that be used for?

BTW, it looks like had been planning this for months.

TIS

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/22..._n_1692690.html

TIS, a semiautomatic ejects the spent shell and loads a new one. But, the shooter has to pull the trigger again. This is true of all guns except automatics. A shooter has to pull the trigger to fire a round every time.

This is why Babe is wrong. One can fire as many rounds as one's ability to keep pulling the trigger. Without that, even Wyatt Earp would have had one heckof a time trying to clean up Tombstone.

quick answer, a semi auto fires a round every time that the trigger is pulled. a fully automatic weapon will fire as long as the trigger is held down or until the weapon is empty.

So, to put it in terms that a non gun person would understand, the guns you see in old gangster movies (ie Al Capone, GF) when they open fire are automatic weapons right?



TIS

the tommy gun, the one you would see in all the old prohibition movies, is a fully automatic weapon. here is a short video of one in action...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4QWrha3HLw&feature=fvwrel

Olivant, by focusing on minutiae and refocusing the debate on what is and isn't automatic, you've missed the point of my post. I don't understand why it is possible for someone to amass this sort of arsenal, including the ammunition, without raising a red flag.

This weekend, some local moron allegedly saw deer in his yard, so he climbed up on his roof and fired five rounds from his 12 gauge shotgun.

A. It is illegal to fire a gun within town limits.
B. It's not hunting season, so even if he wasn't within town limits, it's still illegal.
C. He needed no license to legally own this weapon.

Plenty of stupid people do stupid, irresponsible things with lethal instruments. Here in AZ, a "Second Amendment" state, the biggest fear is of people who cause absolute carnage by driving drunk or on drugs, or texting while driving. And, an alarming number of people caught after causing lethal accidents or committing crimes were driving on licenses suspended for previous DUI's. The law was no more effective stopping them than it is stopping illegal gun traffic. But no one is advocating outlawing cars.

As for semi-automatic rifles like AR15 and its clones:
They are civilian versions of the military M16, except they cannot be fired on full automatic or in bursts. They are shorter and lighter than full-sized rifles, and fire a specialized small-caliber, intermediate-range, high-velocity round: .223, which is too small to stop dead any game animal other than a small deer, but which is ideal for killing or stopping enemy soldiers in fairly close combat. The only conceivable need that a civilian might have for an AR15 would be to defend his family and property against an armed and dangerous gang. I don't own one. But if I lived in one of my state's many desolate, isolated regions, especially near the Mexican border, that are so often threatened by gangs, I'd own one as a precaution.

^^^some very good points. one thing to add as ive said before is that the AR series of rifles are alot of fun to shoot, a real lot. at my buddies farm we would set up cans and other small targets at different ranges and have at it. i strongly feel that target shooting is definatly a valid reason to own one. for alot of people who havent got a chance to enjoy the many shooting sports i say give it a try, you really might enjoy it. if not, thats more than fine but please dont try to limit something i love because of some lunatic.

TB, no one should outlaw anything. And that's not what I'm advocating. Drunk driving is despicable, and offenders are often repeat offenders, as you pointed out. It should demand a serious sentence, and it doesn't.

However, there's no equating the two. It's apples and oranges. A drunk doesn't start planning their drunken rampage three months in advance and start amassing bottles of alcohol to drink before they go out and wreak as much death and destruction as they can before they are caught. Spree killers do.

I'm sorry to spoil your fun, but these types of weapons should be outlawed. Shoot with something else. If hunters or collectors want to own guns, so be it. It's not my thing, but I'm betting that some of my hobbies wouldn't be fun for you. But it needs better regulation and oversight. I can't imagine any reason for someone to purchase 6,000 rounds of ammunition, except if they're planning to wipe out a whole bunch of people.

I'm not sure what you mean when you state "these types of weapons". What types? As TB has explained, an AR15 is not an automatic weapon - it's semi-automatic. That simply means that the weapon ejects the spent cartridge and loads another one. Basically, it operates the same as a six-gun like cowboys used. A six-gun doesn't eject the spent shell because the barrel of the six-gun rotates after firing and presents the shooter with a bullet ready to fire. All the shooter does then is to pull the trigger - the same as the shooter of the AR15 does.

You can find any number of gun enthusiasts that own many guns of many types and have a bounty of ammunition for them. What red flag would be raised? What could any one do about that?

another thing i would like to add is that my uncle owns a mini-14. this rifle shoots the same round as an AR-15, but since its not black and futuristic lokking nobody seems to mind these rifles but in the wrong hands its just as potentially deadly as any other weapon. look at california, a state with some of if not the toughest firearms laws in the country. in california you are not allowed to have an AR-15 with a pistol grip, magazine capacity is limited to 10 rounds and you need whats called a bullet button to release the magazine to reload it. yet, california has some of the most violent gun filled cities in the country. explain that?

Maybe its the street gangs trafficking/smuggling guns in from neighboring states with weak gun laws which is quite common. I've read that's one of the reasons.

^^^ im sure thats true for a lot of the cases, but by california law any guns brought into the state must be registered in a set amount of time(not sure how long) as well as meet california law regarding firearms regulation. criminals dont follow these laws. there are many more firearms laws than most people realize. i just dont feel like this nanny state approach is the answer as the government cant even get thier own shit together, much less protect everybody. the sad fact is that in a free society terrible things happen from time to time and there are rarely cut and dry solutions to these types of problems.

some people just cop out and say if there were no guns there wouldnt be any problems. people in the uk found this out the hard way as slowly it was harder and harder for private citizens to own guns. the criminals caught on and now they are living in a country where self defense is pretty much agaist the law. if you are getting robbed try to call the police but dont you dare fight back or you will be the one going to jail.
these kinds of stories are all to common in the uk...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-143147/Father-jailed-killing-burglar.html

now we have people like piers morgan who arent even born in america basically advocating a total gun ban for civilians. funny thing is he has armed security with him most of the time he's in public so what does he care? he's safe.

the problem with new/more gun restrictions is that it never stops. say all semiautomatic weapons were banned today but then tomorrow somebody kills a bunch of people with a pump shotgun? whats the solution ban them as well? same for samari swords because some ninja went nuts? it goes on and on and before you know it anything considered dangerous is highly regulated/controlled but only for civilians as the government knows whats best and only has our best intrests at heart. gimmie a break!

Olivant, it is NOT the same as a six shooter. A six shooter would fire six shots, and then the shooter would have to stop to reload before he could fire six more shots, and then he would have to stop to reload again. With a weapon that has a 100 round magazine, as this shooter did, one is capable of firing scores of shots in seconds. Unless my math is wrong, the one with a six shooter would have to stop and reload approximately 17 times to fire 100 rounds, while this gun would just keep firing.

And what red flags? And what should be done? Something sure needs to be. What if Charles Whitman had had a semi-automatic weapon such as this up in that tower? And thousands of rounds of ammunition?

Five, as for Piers Morgan being safe because he has armed guards, tell that to Ronald Reagan and James Brady. They were shot while surrounded by some of the best-trained armed guards in the history of the world.

Not from the us but rip to all that died that day. I believe the

columbine killers have inspired these maniacs. Nothing to do with

how close to columbine it was it just seems alot of these mass

killings were inspired by columbine. I don't want to get into gun

control arguments with any anyone also i can't verify their

effectiveness. But i believe the us need to impose stricter

laws so the average joe( not saying he was one ) can't go into

a supermarket to buy a gun and ammunition then walk into a

public area to kill people. Agais is jmo.

California has the highest number of gun deaths in the country. Some very tough gun law states, like NJ and NY, also have high rates:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

There were 8k gun murders in the US last year and 34,000 fatalities in car accidents. So far, laws have been unable either to stop gun violence or to assure safer driving. We have to try harder--and smarter.

I'm not arguing with anyone but why are guns so easy to obtain

in the us? How do massacres like the Arizona shootings

materialize? Is it by any chance how easy it is for a mentally

unstable person to obtain a gun and ammunition ?

It makes me sick to my stomach that we as tax payers have to pay for this piece of shit now. The minute he pulled that trigger he lost his rights to due process IMO.

Every time these mass shootings happens all you hear is gun laws. It don't matter what laws they make all it does it take the guns out of law abiding citizens hands and the criminals have free rein.

These mass shootings are happening at "gun free zones". These f'n lunatic's know this that law abiding CCW carriers will not bring there guns in. And this is where the problem lies.

We own AK's AR's pistols, shotguns,rifles. We use our weapons for hunting, home protection, target shooting and we stockpile ammo. Are we going to go out and shoot people hell no.

We will not go to places where they don't allow concealed weapons. Why? just for that reason. If I go to a store/restaurant I want to be able to defend myself just in case. Example: A local quick stop kept getting robbed because it was a gun safe zone. Once management took that sign down that quick stop hasn't been robbed since.

So don't lay no guilt trip on me or tell me I'm wrong because we own semi auto's or any other gun.

couldn't agree more with everything that you just said! the small amount of the news coverage that i could stomach put more blame on gun laws than the maniac that did this, in fact i cant even recall any coverage where the blame was placed on the individual. another thing that drives me insane is this attitude portrayed by the majority of the media that if you are pro gun then you are somehow partly responsible for what happened. i also have a problem with people who have zero firearms expierience/knowledge calling for more gun regulations but not specifying what they mean by that, just more.

TIS, We can do this in Ohio. Restaurants that serve alcohol we can conceal carry but the law says we are not permitted to drink. When this law took effect all I heard is there will be blood in the streets because of this law. Nope hasn't happened. CCW carriers will not do anything to get the gun/permit taken away.

And Five Felonies I agree with you as well with what you have posted.

Hi, Miggy!

We miss you around here, you old pistol packin' mama .

Hi PB!!

Thank you. Pretty soon I'll be a pistol packin Grandmama. (notice I didn't say old) LOL How ya doin PB?

FF = Your right about the media coverage. They need to focus on this guy, I don't know laws protect when it comes to Mental Health Issues but sadly gunlaw/ no gunlaw, if you have a nutjob like this whose going to school for a PHD you can't predict his next move? Was this guy a loner, was he picked on,