Colorado movie killings spark rise in gun sales

JonnyPistachio

BamaPJFan wrote:

fife wrote:

BamaPJFan wrote:

I live in Alabama where residents are entitled to 'conceal carry' licenses. A lot of people take advantage of this law and have handguns for protection. I'm one of those people. I have a .38 Special revolver for self-defense. Despite thousands of Alabamians having a conceal carry license and carrying guns with them in public, you NEVER hear of a licensed conceal carry gun owner going on a shooting rampage.

When you hear of shootings in Alabama (I'm using Alabama as an example since I live here), the perps are criminals who don't have concealed carry licenses and who mostly purchase their guns illegally on the street or steal the guns. So, long story short, law-abiding citizens who have a license to carry aren't out terrorizing society.

I want to be like the elderly man in Gainesville, Florida, from a few weeks ago who derailed two gun-toting robbers in the electronic bingo hall when the man pulled out his pistol and chased the criminals off. If more people had a handgun on in their possession in public, then there would be fewer and fewer gun crimes.

thanks for that info but if you don't mind me asking where are the criminals stealing there guns from? I don't know that answer but I will guess that some were stolen from people houses who had guns.

If I am wrong please forgive me

People who own guns need to put them where the guns cannot be stolen. If you're being careless with your guns then you don't need to own guns. But, I would imagine not nearly as many guns are stolen compared to the guns that are purchased on the 'street'.

They all had to start off being sold legally somewhere (maybe). Maybe we need harsher punishments for guns sold illegally? Every now and then you hear about community drives where you get something for your gun if you turn it in to authorities. Too bad there isnt an easier way to find SOME of the illegal guns out there.

BamaPJFan

From my standpoint, there isn't a problem with 'conceal carry'. The positives far outweigh any negatives. People aren't purchasing handguns, having them properly registered, and then commiting crimes. Criminals don't operate like that and don't want the gun registered.

On the other hand, people who purchase multiple guns in a short span and/or purchase large amounts of ammunition (like the Colorado shooter) should be subject to scrutiny. There should be a viable mechanism in place to catch these types of purchases so that the ATF (and FBI if necessary) can thoroughly question the purchaser of his intentions. However, if the Colorado maniac wanted to kill people like he did last week, then he and others like him will always find a way to do it.

BamaPJFan

People who own guns need to put them where the guns cannot be stolen. If you're being careless with your guns then you don't need to own guns. But, I would imagine not nearly as many guns are stolen compared to the guns that are purchased on the 'street'.[/quote]

I agree with you but the issue is that some people are not careful where they keep there guns. secondly, if guns are used for protection in the home how secure can you store those weapons without actually making them ineffective. Let's say you store them in a safe and a robber breaks into yoru home in the night, are you going to have time to open that safe and get the gun out to shoot that person. maybe you will but maybe not. for a gun to be effective in this type of situation don't you have to have the gun somewhere open to grab it to use. if you do that can a robber not be able to steal that gun?

secondly, again would it not be fair to say that some guns not all mind you that are sold on the streets might also be stolen?[/quote]

I keep my handgun for home protection under my bed in arms reach. My late grandmother who lived alone always kept her .38 right next to her bed on her nightstand. Any other guns such as riles, shotguns, etc., that are not used for protection are the ones to be locked into safes.

blueandwhite

pandora wrote:

America is a very young country compared to the other nations of the world.
Our problems here have brought gun problems with them and crime.
US cities filled with Americans without hope who don't value life there own or others,
filled with people who prey on others as their livelihood.

Comparing the US to countries of old with mega histories and who were not formed
as the US was nor have the world statue and responsibility of the US is ridiculous
yet something that seems to be done quite frequently.

The fact that this incidence sparked gun sales is not puzzling at all ...
look at Atl. When you know every bad guy has a gun and there are tons,
its a good idea to be prepared. It is prudent to protect yourself and loved ones.

As far as understanding, it is very easy to understand the victims,
imagine what they are going through, lend love and support.
It is far more difficult to extend that to the shooter.
So many fill themselves with hate this is much easier.

If only this were true.

Canada, and Australia are both modern nations that are younger than the United States. Neither of these nations experiences the same levels of gun related crime. In the same way, poverty and despair are not unique to the United States either. Do you really think that other world cities are these imagined utopias where everybody is well clothed and fed?

As for being champions of the world; this is a role that the US has assumed for itself. Many nations outside your boarders see you very differently. America's agenda does not necessarily coincide with the rest of the world. I find it interesting that you view the United States as being something of a champion that the world aspires to. Not everybody shares that point of view.

The difference I see in the United States is that people feel that being armed and having the power to kill makes them safe. It's somewhat ironic considering you have more gun related crimes and accidents than any other developed nation. Buying a semi-automatic rifle doesn't make you safe, it makes you paranoid. So by all means buy as many guns as you wish, they won't make any safer.

Sympathy is an empty gesture. It doesn't bring back the dead or heal the injured. Considering that no real change will come about and more than a dozen Americans will die each day to gun violence, what value is there in feeling sympathy for victims' families? Since this incident there have likely been over a hundred more gun related deaths in the US. Where is your sympathy for them and what value does it hold?

fife

BamaPJFan wrote:

From my standpoint, there isn't a problem with 'conceal carry'. The positives far outweigh any negatives. People aren't purchasing handguns, having them properly registered, and then commiting crimes. Criminals don't operate like that and don't want the gun registered.

On the other hand, people who purchase multiple guns in a short span and/or purchase large amounts of ammunition (like the Colorado shooter) should be subject to scrutiny. There should be a viable mechanism in place to catch these types of purchases so that the ATF (and FBI if necessary) can thoroughly question the purchaser of his intentions. However, if the Colorado maniac wanted to kill people like he did last week, then he and others like him will always find a way to do it.

yes I would agree that people who do everything right are not ALWAYS the ones killing people but you must also agree that the more weapons that are out there the easier it is for people to get them.

I also agree 100% that there has to be better way to track where large amount of guns are being bought but I wonder if the NRA and other groups would agree to that.

BamaPJFan

blueandwhite wrote:

pandora wrote:

America is a very young country compared to the other nations of the world.
Our problems here have brought gun problems with them and crime.
US cities filled with Americans without hope who don't value life there own or others,
filled with people who prey on others as their livelihood.

Comparing the US to countries of old with mega histories and who were not formed
as the US was nor have the world statue and responsibility of the US is ridiculous
yet something that seems to be done quite frequently.

The fact that this incidence sparked gun sales is not puzzling at all ...
look at Atl. When you know every bad guy has a gun and there are tons,
its a good idea to be prepared. It is prudent to protect yourself and loved ones.

As far as understanding, it is very easy to understand the victims,
imagine what they are going through, lend love and support.
It is far more difficult to extend that to the shooter.
So many fill themselves with hate this is much easier.

If only this were true.

Canada, and Australia are both modern nations that are younger than the United States. Neither of these nations experiences the same levels of gun related crime. In the same way, poverty and despair are not unique to the United States either. Do you really think that other world cities are these imagined utopias where everybody is well clothed and fed?

As for being champions of the world; this is a role that the US has assumed for itself. Many nations outside your boarders see you very differently. America's agenda does not necessarily coincide with the rest of the world. I find it interesting that you view the United States as being something of a champion that the world aspires to. Not everybody shares that point of view.

The difference I see in the United States is that people feel that being armed and having the power to kill makes them safe. It's somewhat ironic considering you have more gun related crimes and accidents than any other developed nation. Buying a semi-automatic rifle doesn't make you safe, it makes you paranoid. So by all means buy as many guns as you wish, they won't make any safer.

Sympathy is an empty gesture. It doesn't bring back the dead or heal the injured. Considering that no real change will come about and more than a dozen Americans will die each day to gun violence, what value is there in feeling sympathy for victims' families? Since this incident there have likely been over a hundred more gun related deaths in the US. Where is your sympathy for them and what value does it hold?

Candada and Australia are very differently demographically than the United States and don't have huge populations that the U.S. has. Comparing guns in those two countries to the United States isn't a fair comparison.

hedonist

BamaPJFan wrote:

People who own guns need to put them where the guns cannot be stolen. If you're being careless with your guns then you don't need to own guns. But, I would imagine not nearly as many guns are stolen compared to the guns that are purchased on the 'street'.

YES.

Responsibility.

You've made some good points in this thread, Bama. Also agree with some sort of flag being raised with regard to those obtaining several weapons over the course of a short timespan.

BamaPJFan

yes I would agree that people who do everything right are not ALWAYS the ones killing people but you must also agree that the more weapons that are out there the easier it is for people to get them.

I also agree 100% that there has to be better way to track where large amount of guns are being bought but I wonder if the NRA and other groups would agree to that.[/quote]


I agree, but, for example, if private gun ownership were banned in this country then law abiding citizens would be at a distinct disadvantage because criminals would still get their paws on guns to use against the citizenry. Banning guns would be the best thing this country could do for criminals.

fife

BamaPJFan wrote:

People who own guns need to put them where the guns cannot be stolen. If you're being careless with your guns then you don't need to own guns. But, I would imagine not nearly as many guns are stolen compared to the guns that are purchased on the 'street'.

I agree with you but the issue is that some people are not careful where they keep there guns. secondly, if guns are used for protection in the home how secure can you store those weapons without actually making them ineffective. Let's say you store them in a safe and a robber breaks into yoru home in the night, are you going to have time to open that safe and get the gun out to shoot that person. maybe you will but maybe not. for a gun to be effective in this type of situation don't you have to have the gun somewhere open to grab it to use. if you do that can a robber not be able to steal that gun?

secondly, again would it not be fair to say that some guns not all mind you that are sold on the streets might also be stolen?[/quote]

I keep my handgun for home protection under my bed in arms reach. My late grandmother who lived alone always kept her .38 right next to her bed on her nightstand. Any other guns such as riles, shotguns, etc., that are not used for protection are the ones to be locked into safes.[/quote]

I am guessing you use the rife and shotguns for hunting? do you keep those guns under your bed only when you are sleeping or is it there at all times.

Actually that might be too personal so don't feel that you have to answer that.

JonnyPistachio

hedonist wrote:

BamaPJFan wrote:

People who own guns need to put them where the guns cannot be stolen. If you're being careless with your guns then you don't need to own guns. But, I would imagine not nearly as many guns are stolen compared to the guns that are purchased on the 'street'.

YES.

Responsibility.

You've made some good points in this thread, Bama. Also agree with some sort of flag being raised with regard to those obtaining several weapons over the course of a short timespan.

Yes, that was a very good point.

I think another problem is, parents don't realize how damned crafty their 10 year olds really are. In middle school, I knew two different kids who were able to steal their parents guns and bring them to school. One of them was in a safe from what I heard. And I honestly recall the parents being very good people and decent parents up until that point -- just made a stupid mistake and underestimated their kids.

BamaPJFan

I've been thinking about the Virginia Tech shooter. He purchased his guns legally from a licensed gun dealer. He might also have registered his guns for the purpose of conceal carry, but I'm not sure; I don't think I've ever heard one way or the other. However, he should never have been allowed to purchase a gun because of his documented mental illness history. A lot of people ignored obvious signs and dropped the ball in that case. If he would have been reeled in much sooner then he would not have purchased those guns legally.

The Colorado shooter had no documented history of mental illness, so that case is much harder to swallow. But, if there were legitimate mechanisms in place to track large gun/ammo purchases then it's possible he could have been caught and detered. Or maybe not.

fife

BamaPJFan wrote:

yes I would agree that people who do everything right are not ALWAYS the ones killing people but you must also agree that the more weapons that are out there the easier it is for people to get them.

I also agree 100% that there has to be better way to track where large amount of guns are being bought but I wonder if the NRA and other groups would agree to that.

I agree, but, for example, if private gun ownership were banned in this country then law abiding citizens would be at a distinct disadvantage because criminals would still get their paws on guns to use against the citizenry. Banning guns would be the best thing this country could do for criminals.[/quote]

I have never suggested a ban on guns. I still think we have to look at the reason why people shoot. what I think most people including myself are saying is that we have to put restricted on what weapons people can use.

BamaPJFan

I agree with you but the issue is that some people are not careful where they keep there guns. secondly, if guns are used for protection in the home how secure can you store those weapons without actually making them ineffective. Let's say you store them in a safe and a robber breaks into yoru home in the night, are you going to have time to open that safe and get the gun out to shoot that person. maybe you will but maybe not. for a gun to be effective in this type of situation don't you have to have the gun somewhere open to grab it to use. if you do that can a robber not be able to steal that gun?

secondly, again would it not be fair to say that some guns not all mind you that are sold on the streets might also be stolen?[/quote]

I keep my handgun for home protection under my bed in arms reach. My late grandmother who lived alone always kept her .38 right next to her bed on her nightstand. Any other guns such as riles, shotguns, etc., that are not used for protection are the ones to be locked into safes.[/quote]

I am guessing you use the rife and shotguns for hunting? do you keep those guns under your bed only when you are sleeping or is it there at all times.

Actually that might be too personal so don't feel that you have to answer that.[/quote]

I live alone. I don't own a rifle. I have a 12-gauge shotgun that remains unloaded at all times and is in the back of my walk-in closet in a secure device that would take a lot of work for someone to steal. It's a hunting gun that I use for bird hunting that I only use occasionally. I'm not a big game deer hunter, etc., so I don't need a rifle for that purpose. I got my shotgun as a Christmas gift when I was in the 5th grade and was my first and only long-barrell gun.

As for my pistol, when I carry it out in public, I put it under my car seat or on the seat next to me. I never carry it into places of business, but I could as long as the business doesn't have a sign posted prohibiting folks from bringing their guns onto the premises.

blueandwhite

BamaPJFan wrote:

Candada and Australia are very differently demographically than the United States and don't have huge populations that the U.S. has. Comparing guns in those two countries to the United States isn't a fair comparison.

Fairness has nothing to do with it. There are numerous developed countries that have populations that are every bit as dense as the United States, yet they have managed to curb gun violence. As for Canada's population, while most of the nation is sparsely populated Canada's metropolitan areas are just as densely populated as most American cities. Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal for example aren't exactly isolated areas. Per-capita, gun crime in the US is a unique phenomenon when compared to other developed nations.

Don't get me wrong, I have no issues with Americans wanting their guns. I simply don't buy into the notion that firearms makes you safe. Americans always seem to have an explanation as to why they are the exception to the rule, but when push comes to shove your nation has a serious gun problem.

BamaPJFan

blueandwhite wrote:

BamaPJFan wrote:

Candada and Australia are very differently demographically than the United States and don't have huge populations that the U.S. has. Comparing guns in those two countries to the United States isn't a fair comparison.

Fairness has nothing to do with it. There are numerous developed countries that have populations that are every bit as dense as the United States, yet they have managed to curb gun violence. As for Canada's population, while most of the nation is sparsely populated Canada's metropolitan areas are just as densely populated as most American cities. Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal for example aren't exactly isolated areas. Per-capita, gun crime in the US is a unique phenomenon when compared to other developed nations.

Don't get me wrong, I have no issues with Americans wanting their guns. I simply don't buy into the notion that firearms makes you safe. Americans always seem to have an explanation as to why they are the exception to the rule, but when push comes to shove your nation has a serious gun problem.

The United States is much more diverse and complex demographically and we have a huge gang problem throughout large areas of the country. Oakland, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Memphis, Nashville, Columbus, Houston, Phoenix, New Orleans, Detroit, Birmingham, Jackson, Mississippi, Miami, etc. Just look at the majority of the mugshots on the news and you'll see. Guns crimes are very disproportionate in those cities that I've listed in comparison to areas in the United States that don't have those same demographics. That's a fact. Vermont is mostly a bunch of white, affluent people with a small population and little gun problems. Atlanta is a huge metropolis with a white minority and high gun crime. Before I go too far, and have people accuse me of being insensitive or racist (which I'm certainly not), I'll leave it at that.

I think I'll dial up a little 'Glorified G' and rock out for the next few minutes.

ComeToTX

BamaPJFan wrote:

blueandwhite wrote:

BamaPJFan wrote:

Candada and Australia are very differently demographically than the United States and don't have huge populations that the U.S. has. Comparing guns in those two countries to the United States isn't a fair comparison.

Fairness has nothing to do with it. There are numerous developed countries that have populations that are every bit as dense as the United States, yet they have managed to curb gun violence. As for Canada's population, while most of the nation is sparsely populated Canada's metropolitan areas are just as densely populated as most American cities. Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal for example aren't exactly isolated areas. Per-capita, gun crime in the US is a unique phenomenon when compared to other developed nations.

Don't get me wrong, I have no issues with Americans wanting their guns. I simply don't buy into the notion that firearms makes you safe. Americans always seem to have an explanation as to why they are the exception to the rule, but when push comes to shove your nation has a serious gun problem.

The United States is much more diverse and complex demographically and we have a huge gang problem throughout large areas of the country. Oakland, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Memphis, Nashville, Columbus, Houston, Phoenix, New Orleans, Detroit, Birmingham, Jackson, Mississippi, Miami, etc. Just look at the majority of the mugshots on the news and you'll see. Guns crimes are very disproportionate in those cities that I've listed to areas in the United States that don't have those same demographics. That's a fact. Vermont is mostly a bunch of white, affluent people with a small population and little gun problems. Atlanta is a huge metropolis with a white minority and high gun crime. Before I go too far, and have people accuse me of being insensitive or racist (which I'm certainly not), I'll leave it at that.

I think I'll dial up a little 'Glorified G' and rock out for the next few minutes.

But even if you take out the gang stuff we have more. We have a much greater occurrence of these mass shootings.

BamaPJFan

The United States is much more diverse and complex demographically and we have a huge gang problem throughout large areas of the country. Oakland, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Memphis, Nashville, Columbus, Houston, Phoenix, New Orleans, Detroit, Birmingham, Jackson, Mississippi, Miami, etc. Just look at the majority of the mugshots on the news and you'll see. Guns crimes are very disproportionate in those cities that I've listed to areas in the United States that don't have those same demographics. That's a fact. Vermont is mostly a bunch of white, affluent people with a small population and little gun problems. Atlanta is a huge metropolis with a white minority and high gun crime. Before I go too far, and have people accuse me of being insensitive or racist (which I'm certainly not), I'll leave it at that.

I think I'll dial up a little 'Glorified G' and rock out for the next few minutes.[/quote]

But even if you take out the gang stuff we have more. We have a much greater occurrence of these mass shootings.[/quote]


That has a lot to do with our population being as large as it is. However, Europe has seen some of the worst mass shootings over the years. Of course the Norway massacre from 2011 comes to mind. The Norway shooting was larger than Blacksburg, Virginia, and Aurora, Colorado, combined. And Norway, keep in mind, is supposed to be a relatively gun-free nation. Our Canadian friends even saw a horrific mass shooting in Toronto earlier this year. Crazy people with guns or without guns are going to surface everywhere.

ComeToTX

Right, but we need to figure out why more of them surface here than anywhere else.

Cosmo

keeponrockin wrote:

usamamasan1 wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

...
So... you just shoot in the direction of the flashes, right? Doesn't matter who crosses your path or what is beyond the target, right? Great.
...
You never know how you will react in a situation... people ALWAYS see themselves as heroic and doing the right thing. Works in movies and T.V.... too bad movies and T.V. are not reality.

Nope. No. Wrong

Explain.

...
A bit off this subject... but, John Hinkley was able to fire all 6 shots from his revolver... hit 4 people, including the intended target, President Ronald Reagan... in a sea of specially trained, armed officers and agents who were operating in an alerted status.
Even if you have armed and trainned personel on-site, on the look out for shooters... people can still get injured or killed.
...
How are regular people going to do a better job than Secret Service Agents and uniformed and plain clothed police officers?

Cosmo

your move now wrote:

pandora if that's in response to my comment then it is irrelevant because my country - and hence my norm - isn't an older country than the states

pandora wrote:

America is a very young country compared to the other nations of the world.
Our problems here have brought gun problems with them and crime.
US cities filled with Americans without hope who don't value life there own or others,
filled with people who prey on others as their livelihood.

Comparing the US to countries of old with mega histories and who were not formed
as the US was nor have the world statue and responsibility of the US is ridiculous
yet something that seems to be done quite frequently.

The fact that this incidence sparked gun sales is not puzzling at all ...
look at Atl. When you know every bad guy has a gun and there are tons,
its a good idea to be prepared. It is prudent to protect yourself and loved ones.

As far as understanding, it is very easy to understand the victims,
imagine what they are going through, lend love and support.
It is far more difficult to extend that to the shooter.
So many fill themselves with hate this is much easier.

...
If the case argued is true... then, wouldn't the Middle East be one of the safest regions in the world? I mean, the place is as old as dirt, everyone over there seems to own a gun and they have a lot of love for the guy who pulls the trigger.