Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will someone please explain the need for anyone, other than law enforcement, to posses an AK-47 or any assult weapon, particularly one with an expanded magazine.
If you're a hunter and require an assault weapon to take down your prey perhaps a little target practice is called for.
The only real reason to own an assault and what they are designed to do is to kill people.
Why body armor is for sale to the general public defies common sense

I won't defend the extended magazine which in this case is a drum or drums. The assault weapon qua weapon is less deadly than any real hunting rifle. It is intended as an anti personnel weapon foremost. Why allow them? Primarily as a check on the power of government and law enforcement. And I don't want politicians passing a weapon ban and then congratulating themselves when, in reality, we need to do a better job of keeping weapons of all kinds out of the hands of the mentally ill. For example Cho at Virginia Tech should have been reported years earlier. But because of our concern about appearing to discriminate against the mentally ill, it never happened. It should have. I don't know about Holmes,a though.

So you feel an intense need, worth dozens of innocent citizens deaths every year, to have assault rifles, body armor and all kinds of military equipment for sale at a sporting goods store over the counter, to anyone, at anytime, no background check, no medical/psych eval, no waiting period, no registration needed, oh, and cheap, too -don't forget that- to keep the government in check, and to keep law enforcement in check, yes?

You need the right to arm yourself with the latest professional military gear at a moment's notice to form your own little militia or one man show against our elected government and law enforcement, so they would not dare to 'step out of line', and transform into an 18th century King George on you overnight, or some other dystopian fantasy????

Really? I mean REALLY?

P.S. Not directed solely at the PP who made a point about keeping weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill, period, and I agree, but to everyone who feels they could not live in our country without weapons, and often citing the militia aspect from centuries past.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will someone please explain the need for anyone, other than law enforcement, to posses an AK-47 or any assult weapon, particularly one with an expanded magazine.
If you're a hunter and require an assault weapon to take down your prey perhaps a little target practice is called for.
The only real reason to own an assault and what they are designed to do is to kill people.
Why body armor is for sale to the general public defies common sense

I won't defend the extended magazine which in this case is a drum or drums. The assault weapon qua weapon is less deadly than any real hunting rifle. It is intended as an anti personnel weapon foremost. Why allow them? Primarily as a check on the power of government and law enforcement. And I don't want politicians passing a weapon ban and then congratulating themselves when, in reality, we need to do a better job of keeping weapons of all kinds out of the hands of the mentally ill. For example Cho at Virginia Tech should have been reported years earlier. But because of our concern about appearing to discriminate against the mentally ill, it never happened. It should have. I don't know about Holmes,a though.

I don't think that's true. A person in a crowded theater is not a deer. It is far more likely the attacker puts three low cal bullets into me with his M-16 and I bleed out from the cavitation than him lining up his rifle for a kill shot to the heart while I am scrambling for cover. Your definition of lethality is not practically applicable in this situation.

If there is any gun a law abiding citizen should be able to own, it is a hunting rifle. They are the most accurate and least likely to result in an accidental death.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will someone please explain the need for anyone, other than law enforcement, to posses an AK-47 or any assult weapon, particularly one with an expanded magazine.
If you're a hunter and require an assault weapon to take down your prey perhaps a little target practice is called for.
The only real reason to own an assault and what they are designed to do is to kill people.
Why body armor is for sale to the general public defies common sense

I won't defend the extended magazine which in this case is a drum or drums. The assault weapon qua weapon is less deadly than any real hunting rifle. It is intended as an anti personnel weapon foremost. Why allow them? Primarily as a check on the power of government and law enforcement. And I don't want politicians passing a weapon ban and then congratulating themselves when, in reality, we need to do a better job of keeping weapons of all kinds out of the hands of the mentally ill. For example Cho at Virginia Tech should have been reported years earlier. But because of our concern about appearing to discriminate against the mentally ill, it never happened. It should have. I don't know about Holmes,a though.

How on earth would we have done it in this case? We would have to report every student with bad grades to a national registry. It is clear that while mentally ill people may commit acts of violence, a very small proportion of those will be people with a diagnosed medical condition.

And my guess is that you wouldn't want a federal registry to know that you have depression or anxiety, or have a prescription for prozac.

Anonymous wrote:Will someone please explain the need for anyone, other than law enforcement, to posses an AK-47 or any assult weapon, particularly one with an expanded magazine.
If you're a hunter and require an assault weapon to take down your prey perhaps a little target practice is called for.
The only real reason to own an assault and what they are designed to do is to kill people.
Why body armor is for sale to the general public defies common sense

I won't defend the extended magazine which in this case is a drum or drums. The assault weapon qua weapon is less deadly than any real hunting rifle. It is intended as an anti personnel weapon foremost. Why allow them? Primarily as a check on the power of government and law enforcement. And I don't want politicians passing a weapon ban and then congratulating themselves when, in reality, we need to do a better job of keeping weapons of all kinds out of the hands of the mentally ill. For example Cho at Virginia Tech should have been reported years earlier. But because of our concern about appearing to discriminate against the mentally ill, it never happened. It should have. I don't know about Holmes,a though.

It isn't just one nut job. It's just that this one is big enough that the entire country talks about it.

The dad thing I'd that we practically do not notice the stories involving 4 or 5 homicides anymore.

Van anyone name the shooter and the school where six people were recently killed by a gunman?

How about the one in Seattle? Anyone even hear about the shooting at Racer Cafe? Probably not, only four. Copley Ohio?

The public responds to an event but they know it is not just one event. It's just that at some point people say "enough".

Anonymous wrote:everyone over reacts after one nut job go crazy. the fact that some places are canceling the movie is stupid. the guy dropped out of med school and went nuts so let's take away everyone's rights to own a gun.

OK, great idea. Really. Let's do this.

We just returned from 13 years overseas in 6 countries. We were asked in all countries: "why are Americans so fat? why is the U.S. so violent? Why are people walking around with guns?"

Read ...casualties...

Anonymous wrote:a theatre full of shooters would have only resulted in more bystanders shot ... unless you have real experience you can't understand the stress of using a gun in a situation like that, compared to at a range, etc.

most people not professionally trained would be so stoked with adrenaline that they'd have a hard time aiming & firing accurately in that kind of situation.

many studies show how inaccurate even trained LEOs are in the actual situation vs. training.

just keep that in mind if you think a theatre full of armed people is the answer (and I am a gun owner/CCW licensed).

I agree and am pretty sure that weapon use by the moviegoers in a dark panicked theater would have resulted in more casulties. Especially since the shooter was wearing full body armor, not only a bullet proof vest, no, head gear, throat and groin protection and even bullet proof leg protection.

Will someone please explain the need for anyone, other than law enforcement, to posses an AK-47 or any assult weapon, particularly one with an expanded magazine.
If you're a hunter and require an assault weapon to take down your prey perhaps a little target practice is called for.
The only real reason to own an assault and what they are designed to do is to kill people.
Why body armor is for sale to the general public defies common sense

The comment thread on NYT had some very thoughtful comments along the lines of 15:37's response. A number of war veterans chimed in to talk about how much time they needed to adjust to the battlefield, learning how to "read" a situation, figure out who the "bad guys" were vs. bystanders, and control their adrenaline enough to effectively return fire.

OP, your original comment might have been facetious, but your statements are consistent with lines trotted out by the NRA and supporters repeatedly. It would behoove our entire national conversation to hear more of the perspective of those well-trained to use weapons and to hear views like those of 15:37 expressed as counterpoints.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:a theatre full of shooters would have only resulted in more bystanders shot ... unless you have real experience you can't understand the stress of using a gun in a situation like that, compared to at a range, etc.

most people not professionally trained would be so stoked with adrenaline that they'd have a hard time aiming & firing accurately in that kind of situation.

many studies show how inaccurate even trained LEOs are in the actual situation vs. training.

just keep that in mind if you think a theatre full of armed people is the answer (and I am a gun owner/CCW licensed).

OP here: I'm afraid you took my sarcasm as a genuine statement. That's always a risk on the Internet tubes. For that, I'm sorry.

pp here ... I wasn't specifically replying to you, so no problem there ... just a reaction to the general drift we'll hear, whether here or elsewhere ...

Anonymous wrote:a theatre full of shooters would have only resulted in more bystanders shot ... unless you have real experience you can't understand the stress of using a gun in a situation like that, compared to at a range, etc.

most people not professionally trained would be so stoked with adrenaline that they'd have a hard time aiming & firing accurately in that kind of situation.

many studies show how inaccurate even trained LEOs are in the actual situation vs. training.

just keep that in mind if you think a theatre full of armed people is the answer (and I am a gun owner/CCW licensed).

OP here: I'm afraid you took my sarcasm as a genuine statement. That's always a risk on the Internet tubes. For that, I'm sorry.

a theatre full of shooters would have only resulted in more bystanders shot ... unless you have real experience you can't understand the stress of using a gun in a situation like that, compared to at a range, etc.

most people not professionally trained would be so stoked with adrenaline that they'd have a hard time aiming & firing accurately in that kind of situation.

many studies show how inaccurate even trained LEOs are in the actual situation vs. training.

just keep that in mind if you think a theatre full of armed people is the answer (and I am a gun owner/CCW licensed).

I sort-of agree that banning guns won't help too much. this guy would just have made a bomb or poison.

Anonymous wrote:Every day there are about 100 people in the USA killed in car accidents.

A shooting like this is tragic and horrible and I feel for the victims, but compared to traffic fatalities the number is very low.

Yes, but I use a car to get my kids to school every day, to buy groceries, and to take vacations. What does a gun do for me on a daily basis? Nothing, except in the hands of law enforcement.

Cars have social value that vastly exceeds guns. Surely you know that.