.

Do You Support Stricter Gun Control?

In the aftermath of the Colorado shooting last week that left 12 dead, gun sales surge in the United States, according to the Guardian.

Gun sales are up following the Colorado shooting last Friday.

James Holmes, 24, is accused of firing weapons into the audience of the midnight showing of "The Dark Knight" in an Aurora, Colorado movie theater on July 20. The massacre left 12 dead and 58 injured.

The weapons Holmes allegedly used included a shotgun, semiautomatic riafle and a .40 caliber semiautomatic pistol, according to the New York Times.

Many gun buyers are afraid that politicans will "use the shootings" to enact stricter gun controls, according to the Guardian.

In Colorado, applications for background checks during the three days following the shootings jumped 43 percent over the previous week.

Do you support stricter gun controls? Let us know in the comments. If we don't discuss gun control now, when would be a good time to discuss it?

Tim July 26, 2012 at 07:09 PM
You are correct. This is the equivalent of banning Toyota vehicles for the reason that most drunk driving fatalities occur in Toyotas. It is a totally misguided attempt to instill a sense of safety amongst a willfully weakening society.
Tim July 26, 2012 at 07:43 PM
If the government tells us it is "banned" or "controlled", we must be safer....right? Wrong. Take Norway for example...just last year. Norway has very strict gun ownership laws. Very restrictive licensing. Hunting or sporting only, no concealed carry. One man carries out one of the deadliest shooting rampages in history...with just two firearms. Neither of which were so-called "assault weapons"! There was no "spouting of bullets at unbelievable speeds". He meticulously selected his targets for well over an hour...one by one. 179 people shot. Zero "automatic" weapons used. Zero "assault" weapons used. 69 people dead. Was it the result of a lack of "bans" or "gun control"? Clearly, no.
Carolyn O'Daly July 26, 2012 at 08:28 PM
Very well stated. An intelligent argument that anyone with two brain cells to rub together should understand and agree with. Have you considered running for political office? I'd love a few smart, plain speaking people to be on the ballot in November.
Ed Batchelder July 26, 2012 at 09:00 PM
An intentional exaggeration. The point is where do you draw the line. You're quibbling on my exaggeration but not answering the actual questions I pose which was the more common issue which is that of fully automatic weapons. Why are these available? Because its our right to blow things up in less than a few seconds? And does not being able to own this highpowered, fully automatic weapon mean that our country is now less free? I mean, fully automatic weapons are overkill for home protection IMO and not even allowed in most sport shooting contests so again.. what's the point? If being denied certain firearms is still what you consider unfair and that view is a representative opinion of most within the NRA, than it seems like that would suggest NRA members simply want it all. Sorry... I think there should be limits. Your freedom to own a firearm is not being taken away just because there are stricter regulations on how to acquire one or certain weapons are being denied to you. Until they make gun ownership totally illegal, you rights to bear arms still exist. Just within the confines of certain laws.
Ed Batchelder July 26, 2012 at 09:02 PM
Who said anything about banning guns completely?
Ed Batchelder July 26, 2012 at 09:03 PM
And Tim. " A weakening society"? So if we don't arm ourselves to the hilt with fireharms, we're a weak society? Please.
Ed Batchelder July 26, 2012 at 09:09 PM
That's right. They are criminial offenses? And why is that? They are criminal because they are AGAINST THE LAW. Make them legal, then they are no longer, in the eyes of the law at least, criminal. So making certain guns illegal to own makes the act of owning that particular gun criminal. But Im not advocating that ALL guns be made illegal. I believe Ive made the point many times.
malcolm nichols July 26, 2012 at 09:51 PM
Oh Wait, according to our moron Attorney General Martha C, "It is not illegal to be illegal". I'm guessing that goes for everything.
Tim July 26, 2012 at 10:32 PM
Ed, I say "weakening society" because nobody wants to take responsibility anymore. So many people throw their hands up and just let the government make the decisions. What cars can I drive? What size soft drink can I drink? I got myself into debt, will you bail me out? I don't like the sound of leaf blowers, will you ban them....all for the good of society, right?
Mark July 26, 2012 at 10:47 PM
Exhibit A: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1818862/posts (everyone has a gun) Exhibit B: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/12217-chicago%E2%80%99s-murders-for-2012-likely-to-exceed-2011 (almost no one has a gun) And the Chicago one doesn't even touch on other crimes
Ed Batchelder July 26, 2012 at 11:01 PM
Well, I agree with you there actually. I too often feel that way. I feel that way about debt and that whole insane Big Gulp soft drink thing you are eluding too. Absurd. In fact, the town of Lexington just past a town law that bans the use of leaf blowers. Why? Because they make to much noise. And I think, when it comes to guns, it can be that way too at times (not in this case for Aurora mind you). Some young people get guns from their parents who don't secure them properly. They let the kids know where there ammo is. So in cases like that, although Im sure the parents surely don't condone their child's grabbing their gun and shooting folks, if that happens because of negligence on the part of the parents, then they are partially to blame for their son (or daughter's) actions. In those cases, people still yell for bans on guns. But they shouldn't in those cases. They should be putting the blame on both the shooter of the weapon and the parent that left it lying out on a counter because he was waiting for the gun oil to dry or something.
Mary Jane Mangan July 28, 2012 at 02:03 PM
The shooter in Colorado was not a "criminal" with illegal guns. He obtained his assault weapons legally. Can you tell me why a common citizen has a need for an AK47?
Christine Smith July 28, 2012 at 02:44 PM
All I know is that I can only buy a limited amount of Sudafed at one time or within a certain number of days but I could legally buy endless amount of guns and ammunition. Something about that just doesn't seem right.
Tim July 28, 2012 at 03:03 PM
Mary Jane, do you really know what an AK47 is? Or, do you just have the sensationalized meaning that was fed to us by the left-leaning media? The semi-automatic AK47 is no more of a "deadly" or "killing machine" firearm than other arms of it's caliber. It's distinctive look and wide spread use in our current theaters of war have given the media an image that they can plaster on our screens and say "Look! This is the image of evil." It is very stereotypically portrayed in our country as the symbol of terrorists, gangsters or other evil-intents. The Avtomat Kalashnikova began production, in Russia, in 1947. It has been produced by dozens of companies, in dozens of variants, in over 30 countries since then. They number in the millions, and are one of the most popular firearms worldwide.
Mary Jane Mangan July 28, 2012 at 03:18 PM
OK thank you for the definition. Now try answering my question. Can you tell me why a common citizen has a need for an AK47?
Tim July 28, 2012 at 03:24 PM
"but I could legally buy endless amount of guns and ammunition"....really? Clearly, you have never bought a firearm or ammunition in your life. Not everyone can just walk into a store and buy a gun or ammunition...let alone an "endless amount". There are instructors, courses, certification, licensing, background checks, FBI checks, firearm registrations, etc. Last I checked, I did not need any of that to buy Sudafed.
Mary Jane Mangan July 28, 2012 at 03:36 PM
So do you carry an automatic or semi-automatic? You seem unwilling to say when those guns are appropriate.
Tim July 28, 2012 at 03:48 PM
Once again, you must not understand. An AK47 is just a brand name. Why must a common citizen own a Porsche, when we could all just own a Honda? Why must a person own an SUV, when we should all be content with a car? Why own Prada shoes, when Payless will do? There are rifles that are much more accurate than the AK's. There are bullets much faster and more destructive than that of the AK's. Is there a need for Americans to have alcohol, tobacco, sugary treats, etc.? No, but we sure enjoy the freedoms to choose! Now, do you see how nonsensical the question appears?
Mary Jane Mangan July 28, 2012 at 04:01 PM
Tim, Because you said the AK47 is one of the most popular weapons I asked about that particular weapon. If I asked you why someone should own a porshe I'd like to know about the porshe. Why won't you answer? Your superior knowledge of guns must allow you to have some idea of why the common person should need such a popular gun.
Tim July 28, 2012 at 04:24 PM
To have a debate about firearms, one must posses at least a basic knowledge of them. I'll help you, if you'd like. The term "automatic" refers to a firearm that requires little more than the chambering of the first round and pulling the trigger. With the pulling (and holding) of the trigger, all subsequent rounds in the magazine will be automatically and mechanically chambered and fired until the magazine is empty. Commonly known as a "machine gun". A semi-automatic firearm is similar in it's mechanics, with exception to it's firing mechanism. It requires a seperate and deliberate pull and release of the trigger for every round fired. It will fire only as fast as a person can repeatedly pull and release his/her finger. This is refered to as "semi-automatic". Automatics are strictly controlled and banned in the majority of this country. Very strict licensing restrictions apply. Semi-automatics comprise the vast majority of firearms available and manufactured today, with the exception of revolvers, bolt-action rifles, and few others. Semi-automatics offer the ability to fire follow-up shots rapidly, or facilitate the take down of additional targets quickly. Machine guns, although fun at the range, are probably best suited for military applications or defense against a multiple, and possibly overwhelming, threat. Because of my preference and situational need, I carry semi-automatics.
Tim July 28, 2012 at 04:35 PM
Mary Jane, You are asking the same question in other parts of the blog...so, I'll paste my response here as well. That way you don't miss it and accuse me (again) of not answering to your question...
Tim July 28, 2012 at 04:35 PM
To have a debate about firearms, one must posses at least a basic knowledge of them. I'll help you, if you'd like. The term "automatic" refers to a firearm that requires little more than the chambering of the first round and pulling the trigger. With the pulling (and holding) of the trigger, all subsequent rounds in the magazine will be automatically and mechanically chambered and fired until the magazine is empty. Commonly known as a "machine gun". A semi-automatic firearm is similar in it's mechanics, with exception to it's firing mechanism. It requires a seperate and deliberate pull and release of the trigger for every round fired. It will fire only as fast as a person can repeatedly pull and release his/her finger. This is refered to as "semi-automatic". Automatics are strictly controlled and banned in the majority of this country. Very strict licensing restrictions apply. Semi-automatics comprise the vast majority of firearms available and manufactured today, with the exception of revolvers, bolt-action rifles, and few others. Semi-automatics offer the ability to fire follow-up shots rapidly, or facilitate the take down of additional targets quickly. Machine guns, although fun at the range, are probably best suited for military applications or defense against a multiple, and possibly overwhelming, threat. Because of my preference and situational need, I carry semi-automatics.
Mary Jane Mangan July 28, 2012 at 05:56 PM
So do we know if the same restrictions apply in Colorado? Are there not some states who have very few restrictions?
Tim July 28, 2012 at 06:11 PM
Mary Jane, A google search is all it takes to get all of your answers in less than .00263 seconds. I have to imagine you are on a web enabled device of some sort, but here is a link to get you started... http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/StatePatrol-Main/CBON/1251594549010
Mary Jane Mangan July 28, 2012 at 06:20 PM
So, in other words, there is no gun handling training requirement in Colorado. I have been less concerned with Massachusetts as I think guns are far less popular here. But in states with almost no regulations I have concerns. Perhaps if we had uniform requirements across the nation we would have better protection.
Tim July 28, 2012 at 06:45 PM
Again, just type your inquiry into a search field on your browser. Colorado's laws are not so much different than MA's. Training certification is required in most states to obtain a LTC. Here is another link to help you out... http://www.denvergov.org/Portals/720/documents/ConcealedWeapon/ccwinfopacket.pdf Most importantly, understand that there is no law that will prevent a crazy with criminal intent from getting his hands on a gun and using it. The restrictions that we have in place right now are about as good as it can get.
Alice Wozniak July 29, 2012 at 03:28 PM
Amen! Most of the people that are doing these awful crimes are not the ones who are obtaining the guns legally and following all the proper licensing. It is a shame that the "law abiding" citizens who want to uphold their amendment rights are going to loose them to IDIOTS. Lets hope not.
John H Bunker Sr. July 29, 2012 at 03:54 PM
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply would not work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
James January 18, 2013 at 05:41 PM
I am not for more gun control!!??!! More mental check would be nice! I support carrying and self defense, all the way!!!!!!!!!
James January 18, 2013 at 05:43 PM
I wish I can buy more guns per year!!!!!!!

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something