Don’t hold your breath for new gun laws

posted at 12:31 pm on July 22, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

We’ve already seen the sadly inevitable rush to capitalize on the tragedy in Colorado as an excuse to start passing strict gun laws, ranging from Bloomberg to Rendell and more. But as we sort through the aftermath of the disaster and the victims begin to pick up the pieces, is this opportunism going to result in any new legislation along those lines? One study linked by the AP seems to indicate that the gun grabbing crowd may wind up being disappointed.

Once, every highly publicized outbreak of gun violence produced strong calls from Democrats and a few Republicans for tougher controls on firearms.

Now those pleas are muted, a political paradox that’s grown more pronounced in an era scarred by Columbine, Virginia Tech, the wounding of a congresswoman and now the shooting in a suburban movie theater where carnage is expected on-screen only.

“We don’t want sympathy. We want action,” Dan Gross, president of the Brady campaign said Friday as President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney mourned the dead.

As this look at history lays out, there was a time in the nineties when gun control garnered a lot more public support. A ten year ban was placed on certain types of rifles while Bill Clinton was in office and the Brady Campaign obviously felt like they were winning the day. But then, slowly but surely, the tide began to shift.

By 2004, when the assault weapon ban lapsed, congressional Democrats made no serious attempt to pass an extension. President George W. Bush was content to let it fade into history.

Public sentiment had swung.

According to a Gallup poll in 1990, 78 percent of those surveyed said laws covering the sale of firearms should be stricter, while 19 percent said they should remain the same or be loosened.

By the fall of 2004 support for tougher laws had dropped to 54 percent. In last year’s sounding, 43 percent said they should be stricter, and 55 percent said they should stay the same or be made more lenient.

While many of the Democrats in this article bemoan the ascendency of the NRA in the modern era, the fact is that they have deftly handled a campaign of public awareness which has been winning support on both sides of the aisle. There are some cycles where their financial support to campaigns has been almost exclusively to the GOP. This year 12% of their donations went to Democrats. And the far Left side of the Hill hasn’t been able to swing anything close to a majority of their own members to take a big stand on this. Obama himself said we must protect our 2nd amendment rights after the tragedy. The issue is simply too politically toxic.

This isn’t to say that 2nd amendment supporters shouldn’t be vigilant in the weeks and months ahead. But I also don’t think it’s time to panic.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7 8

Meaning that with armor, with an AR pumping lead at you, you would have been mowed down in seconds, with no effect.

But, thanks for playing.

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 6:51 PM

So no chance is better than some chance? The perp, while having superior firepower was only one person without 360 degree situational awareness. It all depended upon where a CCW carrier would have been located and the opportunities presented. As it was, since this was a “gun-free zone”, there were no armed CCW carriers in that audience, so really the argument is purely academic.

You ever sat through “Active Shooter Training”? I have. You know what they tell you in such a situation? A) Cower under your desk hoping the perp doesn’t find you, B) Keep your hands in clear view when the nice SWAT officer comes through and points his weapon at you, C) if you are in a place where you can’t get away from the shooter, throw things at him (in our training video, they showed the cornered victims throwing silk flowers in a wicker basket at the perp. Watching that video made me very angry, because you see, I work in a “gun-free” zone, just like the people at Ft. Hood. If something happens to me, I have instructed my next of kin to file suit against the company and government for disarming me when I could possibly have fought back.

I hope that if there were any CCW carriers in that audience, they are putting together a lawsuit against the theater company for disarming them and failing to provide adequate security. One of the reasons the Texas CCW legislation passed years ago was because of the Luby’s restaurant shooting and the fact that one of the people in that restaurant had a gun, but had it locked in her car because she was not allowed, by law, to carry it into the restaurant. She saw both her father and mother killed in front of her. I think if a business chooses to prohibit firearms, that is their right as a private enterprise, however, they need to live with the consequences if something bad happens. Something bad happened here, Cinemark needs to lose a large sum of money for their desire to be PC and protect their patrons by disarming them, yet allowing a side door to remain blocked open for a protracted period of time while the perp got himself geared up.

AZfederalist on July 22, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Strongly disagree. You are 100% liable for every round downrange. You must function within your scope of competence. If you need to close distance to get placement, do it. If you are killing bystanders by mistake, you are wrong, IMHO.

Kenosha Kid on July 22, 2012 at 7:55 PM

And this was precislely my point…

jimver on July 22, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Watching that video made me very angry, because you see, I work in a “gun-free” zone, just like the people at Ft. Hood. If something happens to me, I have instructed my next of kin to file suit against the company and government for disarming me when I could possibly have fought back.

AZfederalist on July 22, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Superb idea. Really, that’s an astonishingly good idea. I may put that in my will.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 8:04 PM

one person without 360 degree situational awareness

AZfederalist on July 22, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Especially wearing the gas mask, plus the lighting, smoke, pandemonium, and likely tunnel-vision effects from his own adrenaline dump. Get in there and do God’s work.

Kenosha Kid on July 22, 2012 at 8:07 PM

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 7:54 PM

My point was that you should shoot the highest power round you can shoot accurately. If you can’t handle the recoil of a .357 well enough to shoot accurately, it isn’t preferable to a lesser caliber, it is worse.

Personally, I think handgun development peaked in 1911. With .45 ACP you’re not going through good armor, but the threat is going to be degraded with every hit.

novaculus on July 22, 2012 at 8:08 PM

With .45 ACP you’re not going through good armor, but the threat is going to be degraded with every hit.

novaculus on July 22, 2012 at 8:08 PM

Something about that statement really made me smile. Delightfully understated.

AZfederalist on July 22, 2012 at 8:12 PM

My point was that you should shoot the highest power round you can shoot accurately. If you can’t handle the recoil of a .357 well enough to shoot accurately, it isn’t preferable to a lesser caliber, it is worse.

Totally agreed, which is why I find the sneering at smaller rounds so offensive. For some people, particularly women of a smaller frame, lower-size calibers are more appropriate.

Personally, I think handgun development peaked in 1911. With .45 ACP you’re not going through good armor, but the threat is going to be degraded with every hit.

novaculus on July 22, 2012 at 8:08 PM

On that, I totally disagree. I think handgun development has seen its best breakthroughs in the last thirty years. We’ve got good and reliable compact versions of most preferred brands, we’ve got less onerous safety mechanisms…we’ve got handguns that are easier to field strip, and are designed in advance for use with accessories…and they’ve gotten much lighter. It’s an awesome time to be a gun enthusiast.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 8:16 PM

And this was precislely my point…

jimver on July 22, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Yes:

jimver on July 22, 2012 at 7:16 PM

Agree. It’s (part of) the “tactical nightmare” as wolly4321 articulated. But maybe not hopeless.

Kenosha Kid on July 22, 2012 at 8:16 PM

Gauranteed, you won’t find me ….

I moved to AZ so I Could carry.

wolly4321 on July 22, 2012 at 7:55 PM

That’s a horrible story, however I’m not sure why it was directed to me; I have no intention of looking for you. :/ ?

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 8:21 PM

It’s nice to think someone could have jumped up and been a hero. Maybe. Staring down that?

You internet heroes.

It’s all a bunch of crap.

wolly4321 on July 22, 2012 at 8:26 PM

Totally agreed, which is why I find the sneering at smaller rounds so offensive. For some people, particularly women of a smaller frame, lower-size calibers are more appropriate.
On that, I totally disagree. I think handgun development has seen its best breakthroughs in the last thirty years. We’ve got good and reliable compact versions of most preferred brands, we’ve got less onerous safety mechanisms…we’ve got handguns that are easier to field strip, and are designed in advance for use with accessories…and they’ve gotten much lighter. It’s an awesome time to be a gun enthusiast.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 8:16 PM

It’s true. I would be afraid to run in the *cough* metro park without my little .32. If anything, incidents like this should be an admonishment to the public to start exercising their right to carry and protect themselves. I guess that was my point when I quoted that description of the Luby’s Cafeteria massacre in Texas. Suzanna Hupp lost both her parents because she had abided by the restaurant’s No Gun Rule. Yet that was in 1991. Since then many states (including my own) have passed CCW statutes. Still, no one in that Colorado theater even stood a chance of doing anything to affect the outcome that night.

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 8:27 PM

You internet heroes.

It’s all a bunch of crap.

wolly4321 on July 22, 2012 at 8:26 PM

You sound bitter and unhinged when you say things like that.

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 8:28 PM

Cynook .. you suggested I could be found at a anti-2nd amendment group?

Like you have any idea.

wolly4321 on July 22, 2012 at 8:31 PM

It’s nice to think someone could have jumped up and been a hero. Maybe. Staring down that?

wolly4321 on July 22, 2012 at 8:26 PM

There have been numerous incidents involving CCW persons affecting a crime situation for the better to make the assumption that it would have been better if someone in that theater WAS carrying.

Cleombrotus on July 22, 2012 at 8:34 PM

Cynook .. you suggested I could be found at a anti-2nd amendment group?

Like you have any idea.

wolly4321 on July 22, 2012 at 8:31 PM

That’s certainly the impression you have given here today. Maybe you are not able to express yourself clearly, but that’s still how it seems. I have no desire to learn anything else about how you think.

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 8:34 PM

You internet heroes.

It’s all a bunch of crap.

wolly4321 on July 22, 2012 at 8:26 PM

The issue is not about what we have done or not done, or what you have done or not done in exercising your rights.

It’s that you sneer at others for doing so.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 8:41 PM

You talk out of your arse. It’s a disgrace to those that died, and the one’s that will yet. If only you had been there, huh? Could have saved them all. Maybe with only a .25cal.

Fools.

The right caliber. Let’s focus.

wolly4321 on July 22, 2012 at 8:43 PM

It’s that you sneer at others for doing so.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 8:41 PM

Like the ‘sunshine patriots’ in that Thomas Paine quote on your blog…

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 8:44 PM

It’s a disgrace to those that died…

[...]

The right caliber. Let’s focus.

wolly4321 on July 22, 2012 at 8:43 PM

Breathtaking. Utterly breathtaking.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 8:46 PM

Was at family gathering this weekend, ages 15 – 87, favorable discussion on hand guns, permits, legally carrying et al., and this from a bunch that doesn’t agree on much.

steveracer on July 22, 2012 at 8:47 PM

Let’s review:

Columbine, Virginia Tech, Ft. Hood, and now Aurora Cinemark Theater were all “gun-free safe” zones.

Florida Internet Cafe was not.

Which of those sites and situations would you rather have been in?

/BTW, funny thing, that dude in Florida was 71 years old and surely didn’t have a chance against two armed, hooded young perps.

Except that he did

AZfederalist on July 22, 2012 at 8:49 PM

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 8:16 PM

There have been many advancements, but arguably there have not been significantly better weapons. On hundred years later, many of our special forces have gone back to 1911 based pistols in .45 ACP, which tells you what they think in terms of effectiveness.

Not all the technical “advances” seem like improvements to me. For example the no-manual-safety Glock design is based on the notion that a trigger will never be accidentally depressed, double-action only makes for bad trigger pulls, etc. Other technology, such as sights and better metallurgy, is easily applied to the basic 1911 design.

To each his own, but I’m confident in the old Colt. That alone is a good reason to carry it.

novaculus on July 22, 2012 at 8:51 PM

Breathtaking. Utterly breathtaking.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 8:46 PM

You found three more words than I could for a response.

tom daschle concerned on July 22, 2012 at 8:52 PM

You talk out of your arse. It’s a disgrace to those that died, and the one’s that will yet. If only you had been there, huh? Could have saved them all. Maybe with only a .25cal.

Fools.

The right caliber. Let’s focus.

wolly4321 on July 22, 2012 at 8:43 PM

Just so I understand your point in this thread, are you claiming that if there had been a person with a .25 cal handgun in the theater that it is a 100% certainty that they could not have changed the final results?

Yoop on July 22, 2012 at 8:52 PM

Except that he did

AZfederalist on July 22, 2012 at 8:49 PM

I quoted this before you got here:

Appalachian School of Law, 2002:

According to Bridges: at the first sound of gunfire, he and fellow student Mikael Gross, unbeknownst to each other, ran to their vehicles to retrieve their personally-owned firearms placed in their glove compartments. Mikael Gross, a police officer from Grifton, North Carolina retrieved a 9 mm pistol and body armor. Bridges, a county sheriff’s deputy from Asheville, North Carolina retrieved his .357 Magnum pistol from beneath the driver’s seat of his Chevrolet Tahoe. Bridges and Gross approached Odighizuwa from different angles, with Bridges yelling at Odighizuwa to drop his gun. Odighizuwa then dropped his firearm and was subdued by several other unarmed students, including Ted Besen and Todd Ross.

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 8:53 PM

You talk out of your arse. It’s a disgrace to those that died, and the one’s that will yet. If only you had been there, huh? Could have saved them all. Maybe with only a .25cal.

Fools.

The right caliber. Let’s focus.

wolly4321 on July 22, 2012 at 8:43 PM

Let me guess. Enjoying your Sunday evening with a few cold ones, right?

Cleombrotus on July 22, 2012 at 8:54 PM

There hasn’t been numerous occassions of a ccw carrying individual coming across someone lobbing CNS gas loaded with an S&W AR15 with a 100 rd drum, a pair of .40cal glocks, an 870 pump. Loaded on drugs and thinking they’re the joker.

wolly4321 on July 22, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Breathtaking. Utterly breathtaking.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 8:46 PM

I think I’m done talking to this person.

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 8:54 PM

There hasn’t been numerous occassions of a ccw carrying individual coming across someone lobbing CNS gas loaded with an S&W AR15 with a 100 rd drum, a pair of .40cal glocks, an 870 pump. Loaded on drugs and thinking they’re the joker.

wolly4321 on July 22, 2012 at 8:54 PM

There’s a first time for everything.

Cleombrotus on July 22, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Let’s review:

Columbine, Virginia Tech, Ft. Hood, and now Aurora Cinemark Theater were all “gun-free

AZfederalist on July 22, 2012 at 8:49 PM

Are you arguing or suggesting that a school or a university campus should be gun-friendly zones??? you can”t be serious….

jimver on July 22, 2012 at 8:58 PM

There have been many advancements, but arguably there have not been significantly better weapons. On hundred years later, many of our special forces have gone back to 1911 based pistols in .45 ACP, which tells you what they think in terms of effectiveness.

For battlefield use, certainly. However, that’s a distinctly different environment than a civilian encounter in an urban environment. I’m sure soldiers use FMJ rounds for maximum penetration, but I think most carriers would agree that hollow points are safer when you have to worry about background.

Not all the technical “advances” seem like improvements to me. For example the no-manual-safety Glock design is based on the notion that a trigger will never be accidentally depressed, double-action only makes for bad trigger pulls, etc. Other technology, such as sights and better metallurgy, is easily applied to the basic 1911 design.

The problem is that, even with the technology applied, it doesn’t justify the price tag of your average Kimber Custom Shop…which doesn’t exist.

To each his own, but I’m confident in the old Colt. That alone is a good reason to carry it.

novaculus on July 22, 2012 at 8:51 PM

It truly is to each his own. Knew a very skinny, light-as-a-feather woman who loved her burly 10MM. She basically told physics to f**k off.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 9:00 PM

wolly4321 on July 22, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Do you feel that you should have the right to defend yourself, or would you rather be disarmed?

Chip on July 22, 2012 at 9:00 PM

wolly4321 on July 22, 2012 at 8:54 PM

I think the real obstacle to overcome is the notion that it’s not really happening. I can imagnoe being in that situation and not being able to realize that it wasn’t part of the movie.
We Americans are not really prepared for the reality of such evil. I know that when some people saw the first plane hit the World Trade Tower, it took some tome for it to register that it was really happening and what it really was.

Cleombrotus on July 22, 2012 at 9:02 PM

Are you arguing or suggesting that a school or a university campus should be gun-friendly zones??? you can”t be serious….

jimver on July 22, 2012 at 8:58 PM

If someone is lawfully authorized to carry a gun, why should unreasonable restrictions upon that right be tolerated? Where have most of these horrific mass shootings taken place?

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Are you arguing or suggesting that a school or a university campus should be gun-friendly zones??? you can”t be serious….

jimver on July 22, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Are you arguing or suggesting that gun-free zones have done anything more than ensure that victims are unarmed?

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 9:05 PM

Are you arguing or suggesting that a school or a university campus should be gun-friendly zones??? you can”t be serious….

jimver on July 22, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Are you arguing or suggesting that there are certain places were you shouldn’t be allowed to defend yourself?

Chip on July 22, 2012 at 9:07 PM

Are you arguing or suggesting that a school or a university campus should be gun-friendly zones??? you can”t be serious….

jimver on July 22, 2012 at 8:58 PM

You should check out the effects of city-wide gun free zones in DC and Chicago, and tell us how successful they’ve been. Just like with Virginia Tech…all these bans have ensured is that the only people with guns are those who don’t obey the law.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 9:09 PM

C’mon,, let’s hear how you would have all jumped up and taken him down.

Dodging those rounds. Hitting him between the armor. In the dark. Wheezing on cns.

What a bunch of bs.

wolly4321 on July 22, 2012 at 9:10 PM

The problem is that, even with the technology applied, it doesn’t justify the price tag of your average Kimber Custom Shop…which doesn’t exist.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 9:00 PM

Heh. My 1911 was built in 1919. I paid $300 for it about 25 years ago. I have rebuilt it twice, but it is only slightly modified. Most of my focus has been on tuning. Runs like a clock, with good mags, decent ammo and proper grip it will run hundreds of rounds without a jam. It could use another re-blue.

novaculus on July 22, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Are you arguing or suggesting that a school or a university campus should be gun-friendly zones??? you can”t be serious….

jimver on July 22, 2012 at 8:58 PM

They absolutely should be.

Dante on July 22, 2012 at 9:10 PM

If someone is lawfully authorized to carry a gun, why should unreasonable restrictions upon that right be tolerated? Where have most of these horrific mass shootings taken place?

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Lawful authorization is an unreasonable restriction.

Dante on July 22, 2012 at 9:11 PM

In the dark. Wheezing on cns.

What a bunch of bs.

wolly4321 on July 22, 2012 at 9:10 PM

It wasn’t in the dark. He was back lit by the screen. He would have made a perfect target for a cool head.

Cleombrotus on July 22, 2012 at 9:12 PM

It’s a disgrace to those that died…

[...]

The right caliber. Let’s focus.

wolly4321 on July 22, 2012 at 8:43 PM

Breathtaking. Utterly breathtaking.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 8:46 PM

Yep; completely ridiculous.

Free Indeed on July 22, 2012 at 9:12 PM

Heh. My 1911 was built in 1919. I paid $300 for it about 25 years ago. I have rebuilt it twice, but it is only slightly modified. Most of my focus has been on tuning. Runs like a clock, with good mags, decent ammo and proper grip it will run hundreds of rounds without a jam. It could use another re-blue.

novaculus on July 22, 2012 at 9:10 PM

I love revitalization of old firearms. Got a Lee-Enfield that I’ve been meaning to restore and use…but chances are my lazy ass is just going to invest in a .308 AR before then.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 9:13 PM

About the only place I can think of where there could be reasonable restrictions would be in certain courtrooms, and even that would take a lot of convincing.

Dante on July 22, 2012 at 9:13 PM

He was back lit by the screen

Can you spell Sil O’ Et?

Cleombrotus on July 22, 2012 at 9:14 PM

Are you arguing or suggesting that a school or a university campus should be gun-friendly zones??? you can”t be serious….

jimver on July 22, 2012 at 8:58 PM

They absolutely should be.

Dante on July 22, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Plus one.

When I took my CCW course they reviewed the state and local laws etc. and someone asked about state schools (universities) and private businesses that post signs. If you have a CCW and you carry into a theater with a “no-guns” sign and they catch you, they can ask you to leave. To me, this is equal to MadCon’s earlier comment about carrying in Chicago. If something goes wrong and you have to defend yourself, you can pay for it afterwards (and still be alive). If nothing happens, no one is the wiser. If something happens and your gun is in the car, or in your home state, you are dead.

Free Indeed on July 22, 2012 at 9:19 PM

About the only place I can think of where there could be reasonable restrictions would be in certain courtrooms, and even that would take a lot of convincing.

Dante on July 22, 2012 at 9:13 PM

So you think that requirements like registration and licensure are unreasonable?

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 9:20 PM

C’mon,, let’s hear how you would have all jumped up and taken him down.

Dodging those rounds. Hitting him between the armor. In the dark. Wheezing on cns.

What a bunch of bs.

wolly4321 on July 22, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Not one person that has commented on this has been cavalier about the possibility of using a gun to stop the shooter. All you are doing is emoting and making an ass out of yourself.

Grow up.

tom daschle concerned on July 22, 2012 at 9:21 PM

If something goes wrong and you have to defend yourself, you can pay for it afterwards (and still be alive). If nothing happens, no one is the wiser. If something happens and your gun is in the car, or in your home state, you are dead.

Free Indeed on July 22, 2012 at 9:19 PM

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 9:21 PM

The Dark Knight Movie Massacre & Why I Carry a Gun Everywhere I Go
http://townhall.com/columnists/douggiles/2012/07/22/the_dark_knight_movie_massacre__why_i_carry_a_gun_everywhere_i_go

Yep, the armed citizen could have either killed him, sent him running for cover, or at least diverted his fire away from the masses and toward their person. Some readers, no doubt, are saying, “Well that would be stupid. What if that citizen got shot trying to protect others?” To that I reply: Well, Dinky, if they would have been shot and killed at least they would have died a hero. Have you ever heard of the term “hero”?

The Aurora Dark Knight Massacre is exactly why I carry at least one gun everywhere I go—because crap always happens when you least expect it. That’s why, as responsible citizens and gun owners, we must always be ready and must always expect it because when it happens, it happens fast; if you’re not ready, you and others are screwed.

Look, stuff happens when and where you don’t think it’ll happen. My recommendation to you, the good citizen, is to get equipped with a gun—a fire-breathing dragon of a weapon. Get proficient with it. Make it like a cell phone: an additional appendage to your body. And then pray that you’ll never have to use it. However, should you be in line at the grocery store, or at Chili’s eating a burger, or at a park playing football with your homies, and some James Holmes wannabe shows up carting an arsenal and quoting Kafka as he shoots kids … you’ll be ready. Simply find cover if you can, draw your weapon, take a fine bead, and double tap the center mass of the murderous jackass. Should he or she have a bulletproof vest on then pull your sight picture up to the perp’s noggin and shoot him or her in the head; it’ll explode like a watermelon. You’ll feel bad for a nanosecond. But then the cops and families will show up and thank you for putting Jack the Ripper down. The end

.

Galt2009 on July 22, 2012 at 9:22 PM

So you think that requirements like registration and licensure are unreasonable?

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Yes. My second amendment doesn’t come with conditions or exceptions.

Dante on July 22, 2012 at 9:22 PM

If you have a CCW and you carry into a theater with a “no-guns” sign and they catch you, they can ask you to leave. To me, this is equal to MadCon’s earlier comment about carrying in Chicago. If something goes wrong and you have to defend yourself, you can pay for it afterwards (and still be alive). If nothing happens, no one is the wiser. If something happens and your gun is in the car, or in your home state, you are dead.

Free Indeed on July 22, 2012 at 9:19 PM

Well, it’s not quite that simple. You’re using private property and comparing it with government. And in some states, signage on private property is backed by law. Generally, if ownership/management tells you to leave and you don’t, you’ll be charged with trespassing. But since we’re talking about rights, the property owner’s rights trump yours, where some of your rights become privileges on his property.

Dante on July 22, 2012 at 9:26 PM

Yes. My second amendment doesn’t come with conditions or exceptions.

Dante on July 22, 2012 at 9:22 PM

You must be one of those pesky NRA members or something. :D I’m the NRA….and I vote!

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 9:27 PM

There have been many advancements, but arguably there have not been significantly better weapons. On hundred years later, many of our special forces have gone back to 1911 based pistols in .45 ACP, which tells you what they think in terms of effectiveness.

Not all the technical “advances” seem like improvements to me. For example the no-manual-safety Glock design is based on the notion that a trigger will never be accidentally depressed, double-action only makes for bad trigger pulls, etc. Other technology, such as sights and better metallurgy, is easily applied to the basic 1911 design.

To each his own, but I’m confident in the old Colt. That alone is a good reason to carry it.

novaculus on July 22, 2012 at 8:51 PM

I bought an FNX-9 because I liked being able to cock it and avoid the long first pull. My bro bought an M&P and it has no physical safety and no long pull. It was pretty nice. The Springfield XDM looks like my next gun. It has no thumb safety (like my FN), but has a trigger safety and a safety on the backdstrap that presses in. It has all short and sweet pulls too, which I love.

They are all nice guns; very nice light weights – my FN is very reliable – just don’t like the long pull.

And I’m tracking with MadCon the AR. My bro in law just got a nice AR and his bro has an AK.

Free Indeed on July 22, 2012 at 9:27 PM

DENVER –  The University of Colorado says shooting suspect James Holmes had a federal grant to study neuroscience.
University spokeswoman Jacque Montgomery said Saturday that Holmes was one of six neuroscience students at the school to get National Institutes of Health grant money. She didn’t know how much money he got.

He has his defense.  He didn’t shoot those weapons—government did!  No more federal aid.  Government kills innocent

J_Crater on July 22, 2012 at 9:28 PM

C’mon,, let’s hear how you would have all jumped up and taken him down.

Dodging those rounds. Hitting him between the armor. In the dark. Wheezing on cns.

What a bunch of bs.

wolly4321 on July 22, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Ok, let’s try this again:

Just so I understand your point in this thread, are you claiming that if there had been a person with a .25 cal handgun in the theater that it is a 100% certainty that they could not have changed the final results?

Yoop on July 22, 2012 at 8:52 PM

Why so difficult to answer?

Yoop on July 22, 2012 at 9:28 PM

My credit union has a sign encouraging ccw holders to bring their weapon in with them. The local grocery chain used to prohibit ccw carry, but then changed their policy.

tom daschle concerned on July 22, 2012 at 9:29 PM

Well, it’s not quite that simple. You’re using private property and comparing it with government. And in some states, signage on private property is backed by law. Generally, if ownership/management tells you to leave and you don’t, you’ll be charged with trespassing. But since we’re talking about rights, the property owner’s rights trump yours, where some of your rights become privileges on his property.

Dante on July 22, 2012 at 9:26 PM

True. They can ask you leave and you then should.

We have a local music store that has a gun ban and all my money now goes elsewhere. I hope they never have a problem there – though can they can start throwing Les Pauls if needed.

Free Indeed on July 22, 2012 at 9:30 PM

So you think that requirements like registration and licensure are unreasonable?

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Registration, absolutely. Licensure is a good idea, but the Second Amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Should people, as an obligation to be a responsible citizen, get training? Absolutely. Should they be required to do ANYTHING that costs money to carry a firearm they own? Not according to the Constitution.

Do you have to buy a license to go to church? Do you have to buy a license to refuse an unwarranted search? Do you have to buy a license to remain silent when dealing with law enforcement?

I was personally in favor of “Constitutional Carry”, which is when no license is required to carry. It’s a great barometer for people’s conservative integrity. People like Charlie Sykes and Mark Belling predicted “Wild West shootouts” if people weren’t required to pay 50 bucks for a license…”conservative” talk show hosts in Wisconsin.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 9:30 PM

“Gun Free Zone” = “Unarmed Victim Zone”

How hard is it to understand the bloody-minded intent on mass slaughter will choose such places to work their evil?

I routinely ignore such restrictions.

novaculus on July 22, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Why so difficult to answer?

Yoop on July 22, 2012 at 9:28 PM

A number of possible explanations come to my mind….but since none of them would portray the subject in a very favorable light, I will restrain myself from volunteering them.

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 9:32 PM

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 9:32 PM

I think this episode is just bringing back very umpleasant memories.

Be sensitive.

Cleombrotus on July 22, 2012 at 9:35 PM

I was personally in favor of “Constitutional Carry”, which is when no license is required to carry. It’s a great barometer for people’s conservative integrity. People like Charlie Sykes and Mark Belling predicted “Wild West shootouts” if people weren’t required to pay 50 bucks for a license…”conservative” talk show hosts in Wisconsin.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 9:30 PM

My Dad worked with an old guy who had come here from somewhere in Eastern Europe — Yugoslavia, I think. He said that when the Communists that after the war everyone was required to go down to the local police authority with a list of any firearms they owned. When the communists took over, they used these lists to seize all the privately-owned weapons. If anyone resisted, they were killed on the spot.

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 9:37 PM

You must be one of those pesky NRA members or something. :D I’m the NRA….and I vote!

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 9:27 PM

I was for a year just to get a free tote bag. They never sent me the tote bag, saying I had to fill out some questionnaire or survey (which they did NOT say in their ad promoting the free tote bag). I didn’t renew with them partly because of that and partly because of some of their politics.

Dante on July 22, 2012 at 9:37 PM

I think this episode is just bringing back very umpleasant memories.

Be sensitive.

Cleombrotus on July 22, 2012 at 9:35 PM

I was thinking along those lines themselves and I thought I was showing admirable restraint. :/

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 9:39 PM

I was for a year just to get a free tote bag. They never sent me the tote bag, saying I had to fill out some questionnaire or survey (which they did NOT say in their ad promoting the free tote bag). I didn’t renew with them partly because of that and partly because of some of their politics.

Dante on July 22, 2012 at 9:37 PM

Dad? You told me you didn’t even know how to use a computer!

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 9:40 PM

Are you arguing or suggesting that a school or a university campus should be gun-friendly zones??? you can”t be serious….

jimver on July 22, 2012 at 8:58 PM

If someone is lawfully authorized to carry a gun, why should unreasonable restrictions upon that right be tolerated? Where have most of these horrific mass shootings taken place?

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 9:04 PM

…And how can a high school age teenager be lawfully authorized to carry a gun when the federal law states that the legal age for buying a gun is 21? Btw, Columbine was among his examples of ‘inadvertent gun free zone…

jimver on July 22, 2012 at 9:41 PM

…And how can a high school age teenager be lawfully authorized to carry a gun when the federal law states that the legal age for buying a gun is 21? Btw, Columbine was among his examples of ‘inadvertent gun free zone…

jimver on July 22, 2012 at 9:41 PM

I wasn’t talking about high school students, but what about the teachers and staff? I was really thinking more of the universities and colleges that prohibit guns on campus.

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 9:43 PM

My Dad worked with an old guy who had come here from somewhere in Eastern Europe — Yugoslavia, I think. He said that when the Communists that after the war everyone was required to go down to the local police authority with a list of any firearms they owned. When the communists took over, they used these lists to seize all the privately-owned weapons. If anyone resisted, they were killed on the spot.

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 9:37 PM

Form 4473, issued by the ATF. Includes all your information, as well as all the information about the firearm you bought. Gun store owners are supposed to keep them on file as long as they operate their shop. Guess what they’re supposed to do with them when they close their shop?

Why, hand them over to the ATF.

Convenient, eh?

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 9:43 PM

…And how can a high school age teenager be lawfully authorized to carry a gun when the federal law states that the legal age for buying a gun is 21? Btw, Columbine was among his examples of ‘inadvertent gun free zone…

jimver on July 22, 2012 at 9:41 PM

So you’re giving up trying to defend gun-free zones on college campuses?

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 9:44 PM

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 9:43 PM

One of the main reasons I haven’t yet gone to my local Cabela’s yet. I’m just painting a target on my back.

Cleombrotus on July 22, 2012 at 9:45 PM

Form 4473, issued by the ATF. Includes all your information, as well as all the information about the firearm you bought. Gun store owners are supposed to keep them on file as long as they operate their shop. Guess what they’re supposed to do with them when they close their shop?

Why, hand them over to the ATF.

Convenient, eh?

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 9:43 PM

It’s best to buy used merchandise off the grid if at all possible. :(

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 9:45 PM

One of the main reasons I haven’t yet gone to my local Cabela’s yet. I’m just painting a target on my back.

Cleombrotus on July 22, 2012 at 9:45 PM

Person-to-person sales are, thankfully, still restriction-free in most states.

By the way, have you heard that many gun owners lose their guns? It’s rather common that people take their guns out on a nice boat ride, and just after you finish cleaning them, you drop them to the bottom of a large body of water. Shucks.

Make sure you remember that when someone comes to your door inquiring about any firearms you own.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 9:49 PM

It’s best to buy used merchandise off the grid if at all possible. :(

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 9:45 PM

*cough*

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 9:50 PM

So you think that requirements like registration and licensure are unreasonable?

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Yes. My second amendment doesn’t come with conditions or exceptions.

Dante on July 22, 2012 at 9:22 PM

Vermont seems to get along quite nicely without licenses or registrations.
And, if someone who would be prohibited a weapon in the first place (felon, lunatic, drug user, etc.) is caught with one, there are penalties.

Solaratov on July 22, 2012 at 9:51 PM

No, not 100%. Damned close though.

You’re braver than me.

Whatever. You say you would fend with a .25. against that.

We’re all brave here.

Corpse.

wolly4321 on July 22, 2012 at 9:51 PM

Make sure you remember that when someone comes to your door inquiring about any firearms you own.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 9:49 PM

By the time they’re going door-to-door, I’d say we’re already pretty f*cked.

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 9:51 PM

*cough*

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 9:50 PM

LOL Acquiring isn’t what’s on my mind, I assure you! Do you know how some women amass shoes? Let’s just say that if my Dad were a woman, he’d have a lot of shoes.

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 9:53 PM

…And how can a high school age teenager be lawfully authorized to carry a gun when the federal law states that the legal age for buying a gun is 21? Btw, Columbine was among his examples of ‘inadvertent gun free zone…

jimver on July 22, 2012 at 9:41 PM

Have you never read the second amendment? Have you never heard of young men – adolescents – hunting? And you know carrying is not synonymous with buying, right?

Dante on July 22, 2012 at 9:55 PM

By the time they’re going door-to-door, I’d say we’re already pretty f*cked.

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 9:51 PM

That’s the nice thing about the internet. Within an hour of the first time they do that, we’re going to know.

And the reaction of free men won’t be pretty.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 9:55 PM

Anyone here a combat vet? I’m not.

But I sure would appreciate and respect that opinion.

wolly4321 on July 22, 2012 at 9:56 PM

But I sure would appreciate and respect that opinion.

wolly4321 on July 22, 2012 at 9:56 PM

Too bad you can’t apply that same appreciation and respect to others who stand up for our rights.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 9:59 PM

Now that we’ve authorized mandates, how about mandated carry? Imagine that the shooter were confronted with a couple hundred other shooters. He dies, lots of others don’t. Or, he never tries it in the first place.

Pablo on July 22, 2012 at 10:00 PM

wolly4321 on July 22, 2012 at 9:56 PM

I am a combat vet from Vietnam. I just logged on and have not read all the posts.

MNDavenotPC on July 22, 2012 at 10:01 PM

…..I’m confident in the old Colt. That alone is a good reason to carry it.
novaculus on July 22, 2012 at 8:51 PM

Ditto. I have what some people would consider the epitome of a modern handgun, and I like it very much (except for the location of the safety). Very accurate for a factory stock one, light, relatively compact, yet very high capacity for when the zombie horde comes over the hill…

But if I could have only one, it would be my old 1911.

The only time it ever surprised me was an eight shot group from 35 feet, that you could cover with a quarter, from a new load I was trying out…. That means the only time it didn’t do what I expected, it exceeded expectations.

LegendHasIt on July 22, 2012 at 10:04 PM

But I sure would appreciate and respect that opinion.

wolly4321 on July 22, 2012 at 9:56 PM

Are you a combat vet?

Dante on July 22, 2012 at 10:04 PM

Anyone here a combat vet? I’m not.

But I sure would appreciate and respect that opinion.

wolly4321 on July 22, 2012 at 9:56 PM

Yes.
And, while I wouldn’t pick a .25 as a carry gun (or even a backup), if it was all I had I’d do the best that I could.
Yes. The odds would be against me. But one does what one must with the tools that one has at hand. One can only try to rise to the occasion.
There are no guarantees. Not of success; nor of survival. And no one gets out of life alive.

["Three out of three people die...so shut up and deal." Ring Lardner]

Solaratov on July 22, 2012 at 10:08 PM

Are links to certain websites here banned? Is c/net bad or something? I don’t really know much about it, I was just looking for a report on something…

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 10:10 PM

That’s the nice thing about the internet. Within an hour of the first time they do that, we’re going to know.

And the reaction of free men won’t be pretty.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 9:55 PM

Let’s try this again:

There’s an app for that.

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 10:12 PM

How did I miss the “I’m not” part?

Sorry, I only recognize as legitimate the opinions of combat vets.

Dante on July 22, 2012 at 10:12 PM

Let’s try this again:

There’s an app for that.

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 10:12 PM

That’s just mainstream internet.

They hate this.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 10:15 PM

Injuries to Law Enforcement Officers Shot Wearing Personal Body Armor: A 30-Year Review

By M. Jo McMullen, Senior Attending Staff Physician, Department of Emergency Medicine, Akron General Medical Center, Akron, Ohio; Professor of Clinical Emergency Medicine, Northeast Ohio Universities College of Medicine, Rootstown, Ohio; and Tactical Physician, Metro SWAT and Akron, Ohio, Police Department; and C. J. Williams, Research Coordinator, Department of Emergency Medicine, Akron General Medical Center, Akron, Ohio

novaculus on July 22, 2012 at 10:18 PM

That’s just mainstream internet.

They hate this.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 10:15 PM

Hmmmm….but if they ‘shut down’ the whole thing, wouldn’t this be affected?

An executive order signed June 6 “gives DHS the authority to seize control of telecommunications facilities, including telephone, cellular and wireless networks, in order to prioritize government communications over private ones in an emergency,” said Amie Stephanovich, a lawyer with the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC).

The White House says Executive Order 13618, published Wednesday in the Federal Register, is designed to ensure that the government can communicate during major disasters and other emergencies and contains no new authority.

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 10:19 PM

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 10:19 PM

The actions necessary to restrict access on a nationwide scale would be so profound that I honestly don’t think the end of the day would arrive without mass rioting.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 10:22 PM

By the way…Sigarms is the most awesome handgun manufacturer in the world.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 10:18 PM

LOL That looks like a toy! This is more what I grew up with….

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 10:24 PM

The actions necessary to restrict access on a nationwide scale would be so profound that I honestly don’t think the end of the day would arrive without mass rioting.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 10:22 PM

You expect to see the end of things in your lifetime, don’t you?

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 10:25 PM

LOL That looks like a toy! This is more what I grew up with….

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 10:24 PM

Pish tush.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 10:26 PM

…And how can a high school age teenager be lawfully authorized to carry a gun when the federal law states that the legal age for buying a gun is 21? Btw, Columbine was among his examples of ‘inadvertent gun free zone…

jimver on July 22, 2012 at 9:41 PM

I wasn’t talking about high school students, but what about the teachers and staff? I was really thinking more of the universities and colleges that prohibit guns on campus.

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 9:43 PM

A lot of college undergrads are actually in the same situation, under the age of 21 that is…also a lot of universities and colleges are private, and they have the right to ban guns within their perimeters… as for the teachers and staff, I guess you have a point, but you will just have to assume that they want that, to play the vigilante or the good cop, while most don’t and aren’t interested in carry a gun or getting a permit for one, or getting trained in that kind of skill..besides who guarantees their ‘heroism’ in a life and death situation, they are teachers, not soldiers, maybe they are more interested in running for their life and not in tackling or shooting some evil doer…you can’t force them to, can you, just because you have the right to carry a gun, dooen’t mean that you do or will, thre are millions of individuals who don’t own guns and and who don’t want a gun anywhere near their house, especially if they have children…I have yet to meet a teacher who advocates the need for guns in schools (for the use of staff, sure,I understand your argument)…. It is most common that they advocate the contrary position to yours…but pls, if you have links, i am curious…most schools wouldn’t allow their security guards to carry guns….The National Conference of State Legislatures says that 42 states and the District of Columbia have banned guns in schools, I guess the teachers were consulted and surveyed on the matter prior…

jimver on July 22, 2012 at 10:28 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7 8