The calls for more gun control are already starting

[Sparks1957]

Well, then vote. I know the turnout numbers from 2006 and 2008.
There was no conspiracy involved. People apparently just couldn't be bothered.

Tom said it well. I am always astonished at how many people want to complain, and when you ask them if they voted they say they didn't because their vote doesn't matter or some other lame excuse.

[Master Blaster 2]

Lots of people buy more than one a month...

2012 arms race:
http://www.surplusrifleforum.com/vie...7ca40afbfb8183

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Heller allowed reasonable restrictions, so you don't have a strong realistic argument about infringement. Note, Heller and McDonald did NOT wipe out gun laws.

To monitor ammo sales, amounts of guns - would take an incredible data processing entrerprise and cost a fortune. Look at the Canadian Registry fiasco. The country is in no mood to do such.

Politico.com had a good analysis of gun legislation. Their take is no chance of draconian measures. The pockets of urban antigun culture in NY, MA, CA or IL will speak up. Say Bloomberg, mayor of big cities even in gun states that face lots of urban crime. The victims or witnesses to gun violence like Feinstein or McCarthy will again speak up. But the chances of new bans are incredibly small. The current administration with a very tight election won't go officially near it.

Yes, the UN and a re-elected President will take immediate control of the country and giant robots will come for you. Realistically, we've been through Columbine, VT and Giffords with the same news stories, experts and nothing happened. Gun sales increase, many states improve their gun laws.

I'm not particularly scared of bans, etc. Fun to fret on the Internet.

We have reasonable takes on mental illness on the 4473. In fact, Cho was not reported as he should be. Idiots give guns to mental ill kids like Kip Kingle. Parents don't monitor their kids like the Columbine shooters.

So without absolute bans and confiscation (which won't happen), there isn't more to be done. Gun control advocates don't think through their suggestions, and pro-gun folks can get all in a tizzy. The AWB fight and subsequent elections and SCOTUS decisions made politicians outside of the anti-enclaves very leery of such pop ranting.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

According to twitchy.com, Rupert Murdoch tweeted innsupport of gun control - specfically weapon bans and licensing. Given the media empire he controls, that is not an opinion to overlook lightly.

While I agree the chance for more gun control is slim, it isn't a bad time to remind your Representatives and Senators why that is the case with a short, polite letter.

[MLeake]

Both sides have a point:

1) The crisis du jour will always arise, and most ultimately turn out to be full of sound and fury, yet signify nothing; but

2) It is never a bad idea to remind your local politicians that their constituency may not wish to hear gun control sound bites on the news, and will vote unfavorably should new gun control laws be proposed.

[Webleymkv]

The media reaction is completely expected. Anytime there's shooting that comes to national attention such as Columbine, Virginia Tech, Gabby Giffords, or now Aurora CO, the usual suspects waste little time "dancing in the blood of the victims" and trying to use a tradgedy for their own political gain. This is not the first mass shooting to occur and it won't likely be the last and when it happens again, the Brady's, Bloomberg, Feinstein, Schumer, McCarthy Michael Moore, and the other notable gun-control advocates will almost undoubtedly screech about it again. That's not really what's important though.

What's important is whether or not the screeching about gun control actually resonates with the majority of the American People and it doesn't seem to any longer. Yes, some Senator or Representative from a far-left leaning district will probably introduce a bill, just like the ones that Carolyn McCarthy has introduced every session for years, but in all likelihood that bill will never make it out of committee. Already, many in the major media outlets are running stories lamenting that, in spite of this incident and others like it, gun control has not enjoyed popular support for many years.

While not scientific, I often read the comments section of online news stories just to get a feel for how people are reacting to a given event. In this case, the call for gun control is far from overwhelming and, in some cases in the extreme minority. The only articles I found where a majority of commenters supported gun control were those from MSNBC, and that's not really all that surprising given the audience that particular organization seems to cater to.

[Crankgrinder]

Were all on board against more gun controll that im very sure of. I will though, second the guy who said in not so many words if any business or public place wants to have a "gun free" zone then it should be law that they provide at least a set measure of security and armed personell as well as meet certain building codes pertaining to entrance and exits and fire. I think that was a very good point. Where i live all emergency exits ive seen have alarms that sound once opened and the doors to these are flat on the outside with no knobs or handles to grab and they open to the outside this is building code here. If theyre going to tell the public no guns allowed in any place then they need to start meeting some security requirements to go along with it not just put up a sign. The anti gun people will still push for more gun laws shooting or not its just when there is one they all show up using it as a tool to push their agenda which i think is sad. I personally hope the brady centers as well as anti- gun politics in general will eventually be stamped out for good in this country and fade into distant memory but i suspect that might never happen.

[jcsturgeon]

I wish politicians would understand that there are more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens than there are in the hands of criminals... Every new gun control law just inconveniences honest people and criminals alike... only difference is, criminals are not opposed to breaking the law and finding alternatives to get firearms and high cap magazines.

My theory on this issue is... why would they want to take guns away? If this kid was mentally ill (which, I would have to say, 99.9999999999% of shooters are just insane) why wouldn't we want to fund mental health initiatives rather than just remove guns from the equation? That's not going to fix the underlying problem.

[hogwiley]

Its my understanding the gunman used a 100 round drum magazine. If so the NRA is rightly going to get hammered over this.

This is why I gave up my NRA membership long ago, their extremism and complete and total inflexibility is actually doing more harm than good in the long run. They give reponsible gun owners a bad name.

[Buzzcook]

It is odd how they never publicly ask how this might have gone had a concealed weapon carrier or two had been there... It might be that they were in the right place at the right time or not...

The guy was wearing armor. Looks like he'd prepared for the eventuality of someone being armed in the theater. I tend to doubt my ability to stand up to a guy with an AR-15 and body armor when all I got is a concealed handgun. Oh and the smoke probably wouldn't help my aim.

Four guns, a few thousand rounds of ammo, some magazines and some unrelated junk makes an "arsenal" in the eyes of the newsies

To be fair there are posts on this forum that describe a small amount of firearms as an "arsenal" or even an armory.

why wouldn't we want to fund mental health initiatives rather than just remove guns from the equation? That's not going to fix the underlying problem.

Because people who tend to oppose gun control are even more against funding any kind of health care.

[Pilot]

Its my understanding the gunman used a 100 round drum magazine. If so the NRA is rightly going to get hammered over this.

This is why I gave up my NRA membership long ago, their extremism and complete and total inflexibility is actually doing more harm than good in the long run. They give reponsible gun owners a bad name.

So it's the magazines fault this guy committed mulitple murders? Would it have been better if he had four 30 round mags, and took a second to reload?

Reports are that the 100 rd drum mag caused the AR to jam, so he had to use his Glocks, and shotgun.

I don't understand why the tool in any configuration is being blamed.

[AmericanWolverine]

America doesn't need more Gun Control. What America needs is a lot of IDIOT CONROL

[Webleymkv]

Its my understanding the gunman used a 100 round drum magazine. If so the NRA is rightly going to get hammered over this.

This is why I gave up my NRA membership long ago, their extremism and complete and total inflexibility is actually doing more harm than good in the long run. They give reponsible gun owners a bad name.

The funny thing is, the NRA tried going the "reasonable" route for decades and the result was the passage of progressively more restrictive gun control measures. Eventually, the NRA came to the realization that the ultimate goal of the gun-banners was a total ban of all firearms and that no level of flexibility, appeasment, or "common sense" would ever satisfy them. The anti's strategy all along has been one of "one piece at a time" and "divide and conquer". By systematicallty singling out small groups of weapons and gun owners, the anti's hope to eventually dwindle down the number of gun owners until they're too small a minority to stop a total ban.

[hogwiley]

So it's the magazines fault this guy committed mulitple murders? Would it have been better if he had four 30 round mags, and took a second to reload?

Reports are that the 100 rd drum mag caused the AR to jam, so he had to use his Glocks, and shotgun.

I don't understand why the tool in any configuration is being blamed.

Do I really need to explain why a 100 round drum magazine would make it far easier to shoot large numbers of people in a short amount of time?

Is it really necessary for 100 round magazines to be legal, knowing that its inevitable someone is going to come along and use them for this purpose, considering they have no other useful purpose? Yeah I get they arent very reliable or effective, but thats kind of irrelevant when people look at the possible intended uses of them and wonder why they are legal.

These excesses discredit those of us who enjoy firearms without adopting some rigid ideological position on all gun control that defies common sense and human decency.

[jmortimer]

The evil 100 round "drum" jammed as did the 30 round mag in Gifford's sooting, so if anything, these events will wrongly convince some that we need a 10 round mag limit when the reality was two hi-cap failures.

[Baylorattorney]

You may ban them but the simple fact is criminals won't heed the ban and will acquire them anyway.

[MagicAnimal]

"It's my understanding the gunman used a 100 round drum magazine. If so the NRA is rightly going to get hammered over this."

Really? The NRA provided the shooter with said magazine? Wow, where do I get mine? I've been a member for as long as I can remember and have yet to see that 100 rounder as part of the benefits.

"This is why I gave up my NRA membership long ago, their extremism and complete and total inflexibility is actually doing more harm than good in the long run. They give responsible gun owners a bad name."

Did you get the Brady Bunch to paste this drivel, or was it Bloomberg and Co.?
If anything, the NRA is far TOO accomadating. There is NO reasonableness when dealing with the enemy.

And if you don't like NRA try the JPFO and the GOA. They're not into flexible nor reasonable; their 'extremism' is based on that 'shall not be infringed' phrase. But methinks you'd be more at home with the VPC.

[Botswana]

Is it really necessary for 100 round magazines to be legal, knowing that its inevitable someone is going to come along and use them for this purpose

How is it inevitable? This is the first time I've heard of someone using a 100 round magazine in any sort of crime.

Reminds me of California banning .50 bhmg rounds even though none had been used in a crime.

This is where I struggle with "reasonable". I can come up with some good arguments for banning 100 round magazines. I can also do the reverse.

Part of the issues with these mass shooting incidents is we get too focused on the weapons and not the wielder. You can come up with all kinds of scenarios, but no amount of gun control seems to deter crime.

Ironically, if a regular 30 round magazine had been used, the results may have been far deadlier. Sorry, trying not to discuss the specific incident here, but the fact remains that a more reliable but lower capacity magazine would have made the situation worse. Sure, 100 round magazines give easy access to firepower, when they work.

Why is the knee jerk reaction to take something away from everyone who has not broken the law. Owning a firearm is legal. Shooting into crowds is not. You can argue weapons, accessories, and tactics all day long and it doesn't change the fact that someone with murderous intent had made a decision to kill many people in a short period of time.

[Blindmike]

Would more gun control laws help? Have they stopped one crime yet? The answer is NO but anyone reading TFL already knew that answer. What is needed is the CCW law to change and be something like this ( if you have a conceal carry permit, (CCP), you must have your gun with you at all times. All ex-military, off duty, and retired police officers must carry a weapon at all times.) I would bet in that movie building that night someone would have had a gun and could have stopped or slowed the killing of those helpless people had the law for guns been something like what I stated above. I know someone will say that any CCW, pistol, would not have stopped him since he had on a vest. No, it would not have, unless you got in a head shot but it would have still hurt bad and could very well have slowed that coward down. He more likely would have ran had anyone shot back or at the lest he would have gone for cover. Anything of that nature would have saved lives. We need more people who are willing to learn to use a gun the right way and practice so they can intervene if such action where needed again in the future.
Passing laws has never stopped a crime. Taking guns away from law abiding citizens only leave us all defenceless not only to criminals but to government oppression. Yes, it could happen here just like it happens everytime the people lose all power to defend themselves. Do not be fooled and think that could never happen here, that is what the Jews said in 1930's Germany.

[hogwiley]

@magicanimal

A lot of people think Wayne Lapierre is a total wingnut, there are plenty of NRA members who agree. Personally I just think hes a shrewd, unscrupulous businessman whos gotten rich off peddling extremism. Anyway I wont have anything to do with the NRA, there are still a few reasonable people who belong to it, Lapierre and his type havent completely purged them all, but give it some more time.

[JN01]

Do I really need to explain why a 100 round drum magazine would make it far easier to shoot large numbers of people in a short amount of time?
(Yes, explain how a drum magazine would be FAR EASIER than multiple 20 or 30 round magazines that can be changed in a fraction of a second.)

Is it really necessary for 100 round magazines to be legal, knowing that its inevitable someone is going to come along and use them for this purpose, considering they have no other useful purpose? (So if there is one chance in thousands that something might be misused, it should be banned? Since an untold number of drum magazines have been sold and haven't been used to commit mass murder, apparently somebody found a useful purpose for them.) Yeah I get they arent very reliable or effective, (So if that's true, why did you want to ban them again?)but thats kind of irrelevant when people look at the possible intended uses of them and wonder why they are legal.(Some people wonder that all the time about guns of all types.)

These excesses discredit those of us who enjoy firearms (Many of us see a civil rights/freedom issue, not an issue of protecting a "hobby")without adopting some rigid ideological position on all gun control that defies common sense (I've seen very few gun control measures that DON'T defy common sense.)and human decency.(So magazines that hold over an arbitrarily selected number of rounds are an affront to HUMAN DECENCY? Really? What, are they up there with slavery and child molestation?)

[Blindmike]

The more that you let your rights be taken away from you a little at a time the sooner you will have no rights at all. If the bases for rights being removed is someone breaks the law of the land then all of our rights will be gone by the end of the week.
Be careful once you give something to the government it will take spilled blood to get it back.

[BarryLee]

A few years ago I heard a representative of the Brady Campaign on NPR (yes I listen to NPR) discussing some proposed legislation. The commentator mentioned that in reality the legislation would have little really impact and the Brady Bunch guy agreed. Then in a moment of honesty he admitted their goal was no ownership of guns by civilians, and that their strategy to achieve that was to implement minor seemingly reasonable restrictions until their goal was reached.

[Ben Towe]

Drum magazines are notorious for being unreliable. Their only real purpose is as a range toy. Anyone who knows anything about them would never use one in a real life "operation" (for lack of a better word). Take even the venerable Thompson, the old Chicago Piano. It was issued to certain troops in WW2 (and even as recently as Vietnam, if memory serves me). They rarely used the drum magazines, preferring the reliability of stick magazines. So tell me again how banning a 100 round drum magazine will help anything?

[jgcoastie]

One photo to sum up what all of us are thinking...



No amount of restrictions will eradicate crime. Murder is already a crime, seems like Adams wasn't too concerned with that... What makes anyone think his evil plan would have been averted by more restrictions? Here's a few that I can debunk without batting an eye...

"Assault weapons ban"
As another poster pointed out, the AWB banned certain features, none of which would have prevented this guy from inserting one or several magazines.

"Longer waiting periods"
This guy planned this insanity months in advance... Plenty of time to acquire plenty of guns... Not an effective restriction..

"Magazine capacity restrictions"
These ideas do little to effect the outcome of someone intent on doing harm. A few more magazine changes and you get the same number of rounds sent down the tube... Restricting capacity will only affect the law-abiding, since the guy was intent on killing people, methinks he wouldn't have cared about violating an arbitrary capacity law.

"Ammo restrictions"
Won't work. As someone else mentioned, he planned this thing for months. Any level of somewhat 'reasonable' (I hate that term) restrictions on ammo quantity would have been moot. He would have had plenty of time to acquire enough ammo to carry out his plan.



Agree with others here, this will be a battle cry for Bloomberg, Brady, and others but will amount to not much more than that. Any further restrictions can be easily debunked and a complete and total ban will not happen.