12 killed in Colorado shooting at Dark Knight Rises premiere - Part 2

[Kable24]

Insurance covers not only YOUR car but, also the damage you could do to someone else. In fact, minimum coverage insurance only covers the damage you cause to OTHER people.

Hence why I said your vehicle and other vehicles. I'm paying for that service.

Do you want whoever buys guns to have an insurance policy that if they use it to commit crime they are covered along with whoever is shot?

 

[Midnight Black]

Ouch....I definitely disagree with that last one.
Also, what about guns bought used from a private party? There would be no way to tax or track those, so some of your ideas would only be applicable to new guns.

Treat a gun like you do a car IMO. Track it that way. Yeah the ideas may only be applicable to new guns, but you would have to start somewhere. After that maybe the can go back and try and start tracking older guns, or forcing people to register their weapons, idk.

The background system isn't perfect. Then again what government program is perfect.
I don't have any issues with someone owning whatever firearm they want or how many they want. People who have huge collections are just that. Collectors. I work with a guy who has every AR model made since they were first introduced during Vietnam. Two of which are full auto which he had to go through a ton of paperwork and background checks that took 6 months.

The problem with this case was that Holmes didn't set off any early warning systems for his background check.

Taking guns away, any type of gun, is not the answer.

-longer waiting period before possessing guns - depending on the type of firearm it can be a 6 month wait. We used to have a 3 to 7 day waiting period, but with our communication technology background checks can be done within 10 minutes.


-stricter limit on the type and amount of guns a person can own - What does it hurt how many guns or the type I own?

-renewal of license semi-annually or annually - I renew my CCW every 5 years. I don't hunt, but hunting licenses are every year.

-annual gun fee for each gun owned either a quarter or half the price of purchase. - I don't even know how to respond to this one. What does this accomplish? This isn't X-Box live where I'm paying for a service. I bought the item, why do I need to pay for it again?

lol on the X-Box live thing. I still say a gun fee should be in place, that would make people think twice about having so many or "collecting." Things should be renewed twice a year, every year or at the most every two years.

This could provide more money the help the deficit or whatever. The money could have some use in some shape or form.


People don't need more than 1-2 guns per person in the home. However, if you are opposed to limiting the number of guns a person can own then I say limit the number based on age then. Maybe a person can only purchase 1-2 guns every 5 years or can only own a certain number before the age of 30, 40, 50+.

Either way there needs to be some new regulation and control.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

It's not an accurate description. Batman did not kill anybody, nor did this guy claim he was acting as a representative of the movie besides whatever he was spewing about Joker. He's just an evil SOB.

There has never been precedence for this particular kind of thing, but most massacres have been named by their locations. The Aurora shooting or even "movie theater shooting" (to go along with the term "school shooting") would be more apropo than "Batman massacre." Cause "Batman" is even on kid's friggin' lunch boxes and it's really a disservice to everyone who makes their living from or is a fan of Batman.

I mean, are these companies out to get WB/DC financially here? That's the only reason I can see why some news media is still using that term. CNN stopped after the first day, undoubtedly after some phonecalls from WB.

But in this case, Batman was the location. It happened in a movie theater during a showing of a Batman movie, and while the movie and film makers deserve zero blame and responsibility, it seems as though that movie was intentionally selected.

If you want to call it the "Aurora" or "Movie theater" massacre, that's fine, but there is nothing wrong with calling it the "Batman" or "Dark Knight" massacre either.

 

[bullets]

Wow...

Facebook: Fan page for Colorado shooter doesn't violate terms
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/25/tech/social-media/facebook-shooter-fan-page/index.html?hpt=te_t1

There's some really disturbing garbage on facebook. I guess the silver lining is that people will reveal themselves as morons.

 

[mrvlknight21]

No but that smoker will pay higher premiums on their insurance because they smoke. I get a discount because I don't smoke...

Well smoking is 100% proven to be hazardous to a person's health, 100% of the time. Insurance companies know this and adjust their rates accordingly, they are, after all, trying to make a profit.
Guns have not been proven to be life threatening 100% of the time. Obviously they CAN be used destructively, they are firearms after all.
But as Kable24 has pointed out, there are MILLIONS of American gun owners and very very few incidents like this one in Colorado or other gun violence from legal gun owners (which, in fact, Holmes was).

The vast majority of gun violence (speaking from experience in my own city) is caused by tried and true criminals that are not authorized to legally purchase a firearm.
So, I think the smoking thing is not a good comparison.

On the flip side, car insurance (again, in Georgia) is required for all vehicles by law. Now, obviously cars can also be deadly, but most of the time they are not. I assume that someone crunched some numbers and decided that enough of a % of people will have a car accident in their lifetime, therefore car insurance is mandatory here and people need to be "protected." Thousands drive around every day without insurance, but they are in violation.
I dont have statistics to back this up at the moment, but once again, the gun violence chance is much lower than the chance of having a wreck. So while I am not necessarily AGAINST some sort of insurance for gun ownership, the original proposition about owners simply paying a portion of the original price is not a good idea.
Also, I would like to know what this insurance does. Does it assist with medical bills for anyone accidentally injured by the firearm? Intentionally injured? Both? neither?
Will it protect the gun owner if his gun is stolen, like property insurance?


I may not be understanding your point. If so, please clarify for me.
Either way, legal gun owners paying for some sort of gun ownership insurance wont stop a determined mad man from getting ahold of a weapon and harming others.

 

[Kelly]

Well smoking is 100% proven to be hazardous to a person's health, 100% of the time. Insurance companies know this and adjust their rates accordingly, they are, after all, trying to make a profit.
Guns have not been proven to be life threatening 100% of the time. Obviously they CAN be used destructively, they are firearms after all.
But as Kable24 has pointed out, there are MILLIONS of American gun owners and very very few incidents like this one in Colorado or other gun violence from legal gun owners (which, in fact, Holmes was).

The vast majority of gun violence (speaking from experience in my own city) is caused by tried and true criminals that are not authorized to legally purchase a firearm.
So, I think the smoking thing is not a good comparison.

On the flip side, car insurance (again, in Georgia) is required for all vehicles by law. Now, obviously cars can also be deadly, but most of the time they are not. I assume that someone crunched some numbers and decided that enough of a % of people will have a car accident in their lifetime, therefore car insurance is mandatory. Thousands drive around every day without insurance, but they are in violation.
I dont have statistics to back this up at the moment, but once again, the gun violence chance is much lower than the chance of having a wreck.

I may not be understanding your point. If so, please clarify for me.

Then we agree on something....I don't think the smoking thing is a good comparison either, as I don't think the car comparison is either.... : )

I am simply using the car/cigarette/alcohol argument on my side as well....and as you can see, it doesn't work on that side either. It is comparing apples and oranges....which has been my point from the beginning...

 

[Hotwire]

Hence why I said your vehicle and other vehicles. I'm paying for that service.

Do you want whoever buys guns to have an insurance policy that if they use it to commit crime they are covered along with whoever is shot?

No, but an insurance policy that covers anyone hurt or killed by the owner's gun isn't a bad idea.

 

[Spuzz]

No, but an insurance policy that covers anyone hurt or killed by the owner's gun isn't a bad idea.

No it isn't at all, unless I'm naively missing a loophole somewhere...

 

[Kable24]

I'm not talking about the amount....that is a little excessive...I'm talking about the idea.....IMO, gun owners should be required to pay some type of insurance. And, now that we here in the US are about to be required to have medical insurance....why not? Again, you want to compare apples to oranges, as some have done....I can play that game.

I have insurance on my guns. If they are stolen, my policy pays me their value.


the amount was referring to another post where the poster wanted gun owners to pay half of what they originally paid every year as a tax.

As far as an insurance policy on guns hurting people, that's why people have medical insurance. Any illegal gun owner isn't going to have a registered gun, so they aren't going to insurance. The majority of gun crimes are being done by people who get the gun illegally. Any gun law hurts legitimate gun owners in the long run.

 

[Darthphere]

How exactly does it hurt gun owners? Because you might have to wait an extra week to get a gun while a more extensive background check is being made. Or because you might have the amount of ammo you can buy limited from 1,000 to 600 rounds? How exactly will stricter gun laws hurt gun owners?

 

[Kelly]

I have insurance on my guns. If they are stolen, my policy pays me their value.


the amount was referring to another post where the poster wanted gun owners to pay half of what they originally paid every year as a tax.

As far as an insurance policy on guns hurting people, that's why people have medical insurance. Any illegal gun owner isn't going to have a registered gun, so they aren't going to insurance. The majority of gun crimes are being done by people who get the gun illegally. Any gun law hurts legitimate gun owners in the long run.

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.....

Actually, I was using those as examples to show that using them as examples is really comparing apples and oranges....people using cars, cigarettes, alcohol etc...on either side, is a weak argument.

 

[Kelly]

How exactly does it hurt gun owners? Because you might have to wait an extra week to get a gun while a more extensive background check is being made. Or because you might have the amount of ammo you can buy limited from 1,000 to 600 rounds? How exactly will stricter gun laws hurt gun owners?

That's what I don't understand....if people want to use the AR 15 for hunting, fine...but what is wrong with one that shoots only 5 to 15 rounds....why the need for 100 rounds...????

Arguing those kinds of things turns in to...."I want what I want, and that is how I want it...." type of argument.

 

[Darthphere]

At the end of the day, any new law not matter what it is will affect legitimate law abiding citizens in some way.

 

[Hotwire]

Either way, legal gun owners paying for some sort of gun ownership insurance wont stop a determined mad man from getting ahold of a weapon and harming others.

So, should we simply throw up our hands and give up?

You're right that the highly motivated will find a way. Does that mean we don't litter that path with as many obstacles as possible?


Also, I have yet to see any rational argument as to why average civilians need these types of weapons. What is the civilian need for a 100 round drum? Why would any civilian need a fully automatic weapon? (I know he didn't use one but, it's been brought up in the discussion.) There are guns out there that are far better suited for hunting and home defense.

 

[Darthphere]

I just don't understand the sentiment that it will hurt legitimate gun owners. Will it make it harder? Sure. Is that annoying? Sure. But so is going to the DMV but we have to do it.

 

[Kable24]

How exactly does it hurt gun owners? Because you might have to wait an extra week to get a gun while a more extensive background check is being made. Or because you might have the amount of ammo you can buy limited from 1,000 to 600 rounds? How exactly will stricter gun laws hurt gun owners?

I don't have a problem with a stricter background check. My record is spotless other than parking tickets. So, I have to buy 600 rounds instead of 1000. So, I place two separate orders and now have 1200 rounds. Restricting my right to purchase a gun for my personal protection is where I have issues. The Police can't be everywhere at any second. So a law says I can't have open carry or conceal carry. Do you think any thug criminal is going to care that there is a law. If anything it makes them more brave to mug people. No chance of being shot. That's where it hurts.

That's what I don't understand....if people want to use the AR 15 for hunting, fine...but what is wrong with one that shoots only 5 to 15 rounds....why the need for 100 rounds...????



Arguing those kinds of things turns in to...."I want what I want, and that is how I want it...." type of argument.

I can agree with this to a point. I honestly do not see a need for 100 round drums. I'm very content with my 20 round magazines.

So, should we simply throw up our hands and give up?

You're right that the highly motivated will find a way. Does that mean we don't litter that path with as many obstacles as possible?


Also, I have yet to see any rational argument as to why average civilians need these types of weapons. What is the civilian need for a 100 round drum? Why would any civilian need a fully automatic weapon? (I know he didn't use one but, it's been brought up in the discussion.) There are guns out there that are far better suited for hunting and home defense.

See my above for the 100 round drum. I agree.

As for owning guns think of it this way. I'm going to assume that the majority of people on here collect comic books. After all, we are on a comic book message board. So why do we collect comics? Because, we enjoy it. It makes us happy to read the latest issue of whatever we enjoy. The same goes for gun collectors. The man I work with who has AR's going back to Vietnam with two of those being full auto is a collector. He is preserving history and he is a Vietnam vet. They are all original parts from that time period.
I have gun collector friends who don't see the point of owning full auto guns. Their point is that it's a waste of ammo and extremely expensive. I see that point. My feeling is if someone has the means and goes about it the legal way, then why not.
I've never fired a full auto. I hope to someday, but I will never own one. I can't see paying $13,000 for a gun.

 

[Darthphere]

I don't have a problem with a stricter background check. My record is spotless other than parking tickets. So, I have to buy 600 rounds instead of 1000. So, I place two separate orders and now have 1200 rounds. Restricting my right to purchase a gun for my personal protection is where I have issues. The Police can't be everywhere at any second. So a law says I can't have open carry or conceal carry. Do you think any thug criminal is going to care that there is a law. If anything it makes them more brave to mug people. No chance of being shot. That's where it hurts.

But see this is my problem, who in this thread is saying that? Nobody wants to stop you from purchasing a gun, just make it a little bit harder and in the process more annoying to do so. It goes hand in hand sorry. Nobody wants to stop you from carrying a gun, just make it harder to do so. Adding more restrictions is not the same as banning guns. I don't understand that overreaction.

 

[Two-Face]

Wow...

Facebook: Fan page for Colorado shooter doesn't violate terms
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/25/tech/social-media/facebook-shooter-fan-page/index.html?hpt=te_t1

There are sick people in the world.

 

[Hotwire]

Someone reminded md of what Chris Rock said about gun control.

Chris Rock: "Everybody is talking about gun control. Got to control the guns. F***, that, I like guns. If you've got a gun, you don't need to work out! Cause, I ain't working out. I ain't jogging. No, I think we need some bullet control. I think every bullet should cost five thousand dollars. Five thousand dollars for a bullet. Know why? Cos if a bullet cost five thousand dollars, there'd be no more innocent by-standers. That'd be it. Some guy'd be shot you'd be all 'Damn, he must've done something, he's got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ass!' And people'd think before they shot someone 'Man I will blow your f***ing head off, if I could afford it. I'm gonna get me a second job, start saving up, and you a dead man. You'd better hope I don't get no bullets on lay-away!' And even if you get shot you wouldn't need to go to the emergency room. Whoever shot you'd take their bullet back. 'I believe you got my property?'"

 

[mrvlknight21]

So, should we simply throw up our hands and give up?

You're right that the highly motivated will find a way. Does that mean we don't litter that path with as many obstacles as possible?


Also, I have yet to see any rational argument as to why average civilians need these types of weapons. What is the civilian need for a 100 round drum? Why would any civilian need a fully automatic weapon? (I know he didn't use one but, it's been brought up in the discussion.) There are guns out there that are far better suited for hunting and home defense.

No, I am not saying that we should give up. I am not sure why somehow this keeps returning as an assumption when my posts are quoted. Everything I have said in this thread that was easily seen as my own opinion has been factual and based on my own personal experiences.

However, there have been a large number of people in this thread that have made incorrect statements about various things regarding guns/gun laws (black market is more expensive, AR15s are fully automatic, etc etc). I think people need to ask questions, do research and such before making statements that they are passing of as fact or calling someone dumb who has a LOT more knowledge and experience than they do about a particular subject matter. I am not claiming to be an expert, I have asked questions myself in this very thread, but it is clear from some of the comments that have been made that there is a lack of knowledge about guns, how they work, what the laws are pertaining to them, etc etc.

I have mentioned that I am not opposed to taking a closer look at some gun laws and maybe the easy availability of certain gun accessory items for sale.

My point is Holmes (or any other determined cold blooded killer) would have likely done whatever necessary to commit their crimes-buying a gun (legally or otherwise), stealing a gun, building a bomb, etc). I think in the case of Holmes, added gun laws would have only amended his plan or forced him to begin planning this a long time prior.

 

[Darthphere]

As for owning guns think of it this way. I'm going to assume that the majority of people on here collect comic books. After all, we are on a comic book message board. So why do we collect comics? Because, we enjoy it. It makes us happy to read the latest issue of whatever we enjoy. The same goes for gun collectors. The man I work with who has AR's going back to Vietnam with two of those being full auto is a collector. He is preserving history and he is a Vietnam vet. They are all original parts from that time period.

Unfortunately, our idea of fun and preserving history wasn't designed to kill people. Hence why no one is calling for comic book reform.

 

[mrvlknight21]

Someone reminded md of what Chris Rock said about gun control.

Chris Rock: "Everybody is talking about gun control. Got to control the guns. F***, that, I like guns. If you've got a gun, you don't need to work out! Cause, I ain't working out. I ain't jogging. No, I think we need some bullet control. I think every bullet should cost five thousand dollars. Five thousand dollars for a bullet. Know why? Cos if a bullet cost five thousand dollars, there'd be no more innocent by-standers. That'd be it. Some guy'd be shot you'd be all 'Damn, he must've done something, he's got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ass!' And people'd think before they shot someone 'Man I will blow your f***ing head off, if I could afford it. I'm gonna get me a second job, start saving up, and you a dead man. You'd better hope I don't get no bullets on lay-away!' And even if you get shot you wouldn't need to go to the emergency room. Whoever shot you'd take their bullet back. 'I believe you got my property?'"

Chris Rock-best comedian regarding politics and current events, EVER.

 

[Kable24]

But see this is my problem, who in this thread is saying that? Nobody wants to stop you from purchasing a gun, just make it a little bit harder and in the process more annoying to do so. It goes hand in hand sorry. Nobody wants to stop you from carrying a gun, just make it harder to do so. Adding more restrictions is not the same as banning guns. I don't understand that overreaction.

There are those that are saying that. That all guns need to be banned. There just isn't a happy medium when it comes to this. I'm just one gun owner. I'm sure there are others who wouldn't agree with my point on it.

If you get a chance, check out the gun application to buy a gun.

 

[Kable24]

Unfortunately, our idea of fun and preserving history wasn't designed to kill people. Hence why no one is calling for comic book reform.

Actually there was comic book reform. Seduction of the Innocent and the comics code authority.

It doesn't matter what it was designed for. It's still preserving history when someone collects WWI, WWII and Vietnam era weapons.

The reason why I collect AR's and other types of guns. Because, I enjoy going out and shooting target. If I have a bad day at work, I get my buddy and we go and shoot target. It helps me relax. When I am looking through a scope at a target the size of a coffee cup at 200+ yards away it helps me relax, focus and concentrate. A few times, I'd go out by myself and sit at the shooting bench, enjoy nature, listen to some music and just shoot target. Maybe if you'd shoot some of what I shoot, you'd understand and have an appreciation for it.

 

[Tangled Web]

I mean, are these companies out to get WB/DC financially here? That's the only reason I can see why some news media is still using that term. CNN stopped after the first day, undoubtedly after some phonecalls from WB.

They share the same parent company in Time Warner so that makes sense that this would be the case.