Shouldn't We Gun Owners Say Something about the Aurora Shooting?

[Tom Goodrick]

We are taking a beating from some irresponsible members of the press about this Aurora shooting. Tonight I heard two reporters on CBS News say that, something must be done to separate all the gun owners from their guns (or words very similar in effect). They are forgetting the rights granted to every law-abiding citizen by the 2nd Amendment. We should expound on our right to defend ourselves and our families using guns in our homes. The established right of lawful citizens to carry guns in many public areas should also be presented and supported.

These rights need frequent clarification and support. We also need to publish facts that support our cause such as the low level of crime among people holding valid CC permits.

However, this shooting brings out some topics we should discuss about ourselves and among ourselves. For example, no one with a CC permit and a concealed gun could have limited this tragedy by shooting the shooter. Aiming in that environment would have been extremely difficult. He had so much armor on that we could not have hit him and would probably have hit innocent people. More of us should practice with laser sights because that would have been the only way it might have been possible to stop him. But then we must ask ourselves why civilians can buy armor like that. Isn't that a little much? He only had a few square inches of vulnerability!

We are probably going to see more restrictions on our activities. Perhaps we can police ourselves to some extent. Do we really need armor? Silencers? Large magazines (20-30 rnds)? At least we should discuss it. If we come to a consensus, letters to the editors of general public media would be in order.

 

[Neumann]

I think it's best to lay low. There is no political stomach to take on the "gun lobby" at this time, and nothing to be gained by preaching to the (gun) choir. The governor of Colorado took a pass, and he's a bosom buddy of Bloomberg.

So far Bloomberg has been the only public official to step up the demand for gun control, but he has nothing to lose. He bought the last three elections with his own fortune, including the right to run for a third term. If he doesn't sprout horns and hooves before November, he's safe for a 4th.

 

[RolandW]

The argument of the gun control people is that we private individuals should not be able to acquire whatever weapons we want. They might concede that we should be allowed some kinds of firearms, but that we simply "don't need" things like "assault weapons." Sophisticated weapons, they contend, should only be available to agents of the government.
Now think about where an individual might get ideas about tactics to use in an attack like the one in Aurora. Let's see, load up thousands of rounds, put on gobs of protective gear, bust down the door, throw a grenade, and enter with weapons drawn.
Who does that remind you of? Perhaps the government?
That's where lunatics get ideas like this: from the government that they are taught can do no wrong, not from private individuals who want to have the tools to protect themselves and their families. And the gun control people want to limit our options so the agents of the government can further monopolize the use of force. Doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[MrAmbassador]

Look at all the illegal drugs. Heroin, Cocaine and Methamphetamine, all illegal for years and years. There is an unlimited supply available to anyone who wants it. All the laws banning the "bad" stuff are only going to keep the innocent law abiding people honest. The scumbags will always find a way. Remember prohibition, it's not the things, it's the people.

 

[StatesRightist]

Just as soon as we have a discussion on cars, Drunks kill more people every year than guns. Medical malpractice which kills more people, cigarettes, which are available to every 18 yr old in America etc....

The Constitution says "shall not be abridged"...what part of that is unclear? I'm betting the millions of people massacred every year who can't defend themselves would like to have had guns with magazines w/ 30 rounds and body armor.

Your post also completely leaves out the fact this was a "gun-free" zone where it happened.

I'd also like to see picture of this "armor" he had on, because I can tell you the Hollywood guy wearing a vest gets shot and it does not effect him is a bunch of hooey and I don't see him running around in hard armor being practical.

The last thing we need is a knee jerk cave in to the Anti's opening the door to rabid gun control.

Molon Labe.

 

[Martya]

The problem is the grabbers have turned this into the gun's fault, and they are playing up people's emotions. It is tough to remain civil and intelligent and discuss facts about anything when people's emotions are soaring and they believe the gun is the problem. Between the MSM and the famous vocal few grabber societies' prevarications the term "gun" gets some folks' blood pumping. You are not going to change that with a two minute argument with these people.

Keep the real stats handy, point out the usual bad things that happen with government control, write to Reps and Sens, talk to fellow gun owners and remind them to vote accordingly, and maintain emotional control when discussing this.

But never give in.

 

[bluegrassrules]

I think this should be bumped to the lounge, more people will be able to read this.
Cheers

 

[Poodle Soup]

Say something? Who is willing to listen at this point? And the media is not interested in facts its interested in ratings. The more emotion they can pump into it the more people will watch. This is CNNs wet dream come true. Along with all the anti gun nuts out there.

 

[vytoland]

the less said about this the better…. In a little while this will be a memory and erased by the latest dramatic happening that the media will escalate and beat to death

 

[RolandW]

Actually, I've been somewhat encouraged by the lack of anti-gun hysteria this time around. I intentionally avoid mainstream news, but my impression is that the do-gooders either don't react as strongly as they used to, or they just don't get the coverage. Do you guys detect that too?
BTW, on our local TV, one of the news readers the other day was talking about the weapons used in Aurora. The AR-15, she said, is "the military version of a machine gun."

 

[Waltherman]

Worst mass murder in modern US history?
With a plastic jug and $1.00 worth of gas, a angry former boyfriend
set fire to the "Happy Land" late night club in NYC in March,1990.
87 DEAD, and it was in Bloomburg's back yard.

Looks like we might need some gas and match control also.

 

[Nico Testosteros]

What about the Oklahoma City bombing or Wounded Knee? Both those murder events were far more deadly.

 

[jlrhiner]

Bloomburg is an ***. He is the worst America can produce. He cares for nothing but his own agenda, and is willing to break the law to achieve them. He spent millions of his own money to get elected to the mayors office for one reason only, power. He should be arrested and prosecuted for his RICO conspiracy to illegally purchase and traffic in firearms.

A MADMAN legally purchased firearms, illegally constructed explosive devices, premeditated his MURDER of innocent people and carried out this task. How is it the guns fault? How can this even remotely be construed as a 2nd Amendment issue? In no way is the RTKBA involved in a domestic terrorism act. He CHOSE to commit murder. Irresponsible laws made it safe for him to do so, not the 2nd amendment.

 

[jlrhiner]

What about the Oklahoma City bombing or Wounded Knee? Both those murder events were far more deadly.

Wounded Knee is a poor choice for comparison.

 

[PALADIN85020]

I think it's best to lay low. There is no political stomach to take on the "gun lobby" at this time, and nothing to be gained by preaching to the (gun) choir. The governor of Colorado took a pass, and he's a bosom buddy of Bloomberg.

So far Bloomberg has been the only public official to step up the demand for gun control, but he has nothing to lose. He bought the last three elections with his own fortune, including the right to run for a third term. If he doesn't sprout horns and hooves before November, he's safe for a 4th.

Actually, Reps. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) are now beating the drums for more gun control. This was predictable; with these two it's the usual knee-jerk reaction, never letting a perceived "crisis" go to waste.

Obama hasn't joined in that, although his anti-gun views are well known. Right now, he's just milking the publicity he's getting by being sympathetic and getting news coverage for every statement.

John

 

[RolandW]

Look at all the illegal drugs. Heroin, Cocaine and Methamphetamine, all illegal for years and years. There is an unlimited supply available to anyone who wants it. All the laws banning the "bad" stuff are only going to keep the innocent law abiding people honest. The scumbags will always find a way. Remember prohibition, it's not the things, it's the people.

MrAmbassador, if only a few more Americans understood prohibition as you do, maybe we could put an end to the moronic War on Drugs for good.
Every time I hear another report of a drive-by shooting, I wonder whether it would have occurred if governments would stop trying to force people to be good by banning substances that will always be in demand.
When was the last time you heard of somebody being killed in "a beer deal gone bad"?
The economics and human behavior at work here really are pretty easy to understand. But gullible Americans keep buying the baloney they're fed by people whose livelihood depends on continuing these nutty policies.
To the violent drug trade, add the backwards incentives and dependency that other government programs create, and you get urban hellholes where productive communities otherwise would exist.

 

[rolomac]

YES absolutely we should be saying something about it. I have come to believe that we can be most effective on an individual basis. We need to address the subject with people at work, at leisure, family, friends, casual acquaintences. Not argumentive,not loud, not "radical", not unfriendly - but sensibly, logically and persuasively. We need to express that there is already "gun control" at local, state and federal level. What is needed is "nut" control. There are "nuts" out there and we need to be alert to them. How many of these horrible events could have been prevented if somebody had simply questioned their actions which - with hindsight - were highly indicative of some underlying evil.

rolomac

 

[StatesRightist]

MrAmbassador, if only a few more Americans understood prohibition as you do, maybe we could put an end to the moronic War on Drugs for good.
Every time I hear another report of a drive-by shooting, I wonder whether it would have occurred if governments would stop trying to force people to be good by banning substances that will always be in demand.
When was the last time you heard of somebody being killed in "a beer deal gone bad"?
The economics and human behavior at work here really are pretty easy to understand. But gullible Americans keep buying the baloney they're fed by people whose livelihood depends on continuing these nutty policies.
To the violent drug trade, add the backwards incentives and dependency that other government programs create, and you get urban hellholes where productive communities otherwise would exist.

Yes, but whole Agencies, Budgets and political weapons would be lost if we actually ended the farce known as "the war on drugs." We couldn't have that, much less the loss of the true aim of these polices, the militarization of the police.

The other side of the argument is what would we do with the new crop of addicts? People can't control their french fry intake, you think they'll control their drug usage?

It's a complex issue, we do agree on one point, what we are doing now is not getting it.

 

[RolandW]

There are "nuts" out there and we need to be alert to them. How many of these horrible events could have been prevented if somebody had simply questioned their actions which - with hindsight - were highly indicative of some underlying evil.

Yes rolomac, alertness is good. But I contend that the "underlying evil" is the state. When Mr. Holmes went into action, he was not employing the M.O. of a civilian who owns firearms for his own protection or recreation; he was imitating the government's armed thugs, whose handiwork we can view on YouTube for hours on end.
The state is the biggest killer ever known to man. If there's an evil "gun culture" today, it should be blamed on the only organization that claims a monopoly on the use of force, and that teaches our kids that the way to get another human to do what's right is to put your boot on his throat.
There will always be garden-variety murders, and yes, every now and then some guy will go nuts and mow down a dozen or more. But to slaughter innocent men, women and children by the thousands or even millions, that takes the state. Don't trust it.

 

[RolandW]

It's a complex issue, we do agree on one point, what we are doing now is not getting it.

StatesRightist, you are spot-on. I have serious doubts, however, that even the radical step of legalizing all drugs right now would result in much increase in usage. Maybe a temporary uptick at most. What it would do is put an end to a lot of violence and free up resources that could be put to productive use.
Some people have a weakness for this stuff, and that doesn't change when it's made legal or illegal. I'm blessed to be among the overwhelming majority who don't crave it.
Nobody's ever said to me, "Gosh, I'd love to become a heroin addict, but it's just too darned expensive!"