High capacity magazine in rampage was banned under Clinton-era law

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yet just look at how many people get shot generally.

Or how many rampage incidents you have in US. Britain has one last year, first time since 1995.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I know what your getting at, but I don't think the 30 round clip was as important as people think. He did have two other pistols, he very easily could have dropped the glock and gone to another in less than a second.

I think its more likely he wasn't a regular gun user. (His friends say he wasn't in to guns). I'm not sure if you have seen shooting competitions with glocks, but they reload so fast I'd have to be an arm's length away to jump them.

He was clearly a disturbed person who had no business being able to purchase a firearm, let alone using one, even for target practice.

Lets look at the facts - 4 people were able to wrestle him to the ground after he ran out of bullets. Whether you can chalk that up to his inexperience with firearms or not, it gave that crowd a fighting chance to stop him from killing any more people. We have restrictions on the ownership of fully automatic firearms because of the potential lethality in situations like this mass shooting. Even police don't want this high capacity magazines out there because it puts them at a disadvantage.

On another note - if the community college was able to require that he have a mental evaluation before he could return to campus, it seems reasonable that we could have put such a condition on him purchasing firearms.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Yet just look at how many people get shot generally.

Or how many rampage incidents you have in US. Britain has one last year, first time since 1995.

and they also have a fraction of the population we have...

and there aren't that many guns in Brtain either. Keeps the government in 'control.'

A government should fear its people. Not the other way around.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

He was clearly a disturbed person who had no business being able to purchase a firearm, let alone using one, even for target practice.

Lets look at the facts - 4 people were able to wrestle him to the ground after he ran out of bullets. Whether you can chalk that up to his inexperience with firearms or not, it gave that crowd a fighting chance to stop him from killing any more people. We have restrictions on the ownership of fully automatic firearms because of the potential lethality in situations like this mass shooting. Even police don't want this high capacity magazines out there because it puts them at a disadvantage.

On another note - if the community college was able to require that he have a mental evaluation before he could return to campus, it seems reasonable that we could have put such a condition on him purchasing firearms.

You've hit it there. Obviously there is a major flaw in the security checks in acquiring firearms and that needs investigating. The magazine size is irrelevant because it can be planned around. Fully automatic is another story, and I can see why it is banned.

[Danno 1,228]

You've hit it there. Obviously there is a major flaw in the security checks in acquiring firearms and that needs investigating. The magazine size is irrelevant because it can be planned around. Fully automatic is another story, and I can see why it is banned.

Actually the fully auto fire is not all it's cracked up to be as far as danger.

After a 3 round burst you are off of target anyway.

You can simulat full-auto anyway with a technique called "BUmp firing".

Check this out.

WARNING: Steven and Ron Burgundy might need to change their diaper.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

and they also have a fraction of the population we have...

and there aren't that many guns in Brtain either. Keeps the government in 'control.'

A government should fear its people. Not the other way around.

You don't know very much about Britain. If people feared the government then people wouldn't be protesting on the streets about tuition fee rises, budget cuts and foreign policy.

You don't need a gun inside your home to ensure that those things continue to happen. That's the sort of romantic garbage the nra loves to peddle.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

You don't need a gun inside your home to ensure that those things continue to happen. That's the sort of romantic garbage the nra loves to peddle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OZS6wem7OQ&feature=related

[Danno 1,228]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OZS6wem7OQ&feature=related

Thanks for that trip down memory lane.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You don't know very much about Britain. If people feared the government then people wouldn't be protesting on the streets about tuition fee rises, budget cuts and foreign policy.

You don't need a gun inside your home to ensure that those things continue to happen. That's the sort of romantic garbage the nra loves to peddle.

No, that's the type of 'romantic garbage' the founding fathers like to peddle.

Of course, if you understood anything about history, anything about our founding, anything about our constitution, the declaration of idependence, etc... then you would know that.

Of course the left side of the aisle is driven so hard into your brain, you forget what the 2nd amendment REALLY is for.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No, that's the type of 'romantic garbage' the founding fathers like to peddle.

Of course, if you understood anything about history, anything about our founding, anything about our constitution, the declaration of idependence, etc... then you would know that.

Of course the left side of the aisle is driven so hard into your brain, you forget what the 2nd amendment REALLY is for.

Give me a break Paul - for someone who likes to lay claim to the meathook realities of life, you seem pretty laissez faire when it comes to putting stock in emotionally loaded rhetoric.

What a lot of utter twaddle.

Edited January 10, 2011 by Ron Burgundy

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Give me a break Paul - for someone who likes to lay claim to the meathook realities of life, you seem pretty laissez faire when it comes to putting stock in emotionally loaded rhetoric.

What a lot of utter twaddle.

the reality of life is no government like ours can self-sustain itself under the guise of liberty, because everyone has a different definition of what liberty is.

The problem with our current setup, came when people started trying to control on a federal level what other states are doing.

The whole point of the United States per se and to use an old term, is that we are all 'seperate but equal' - We all live under the constitution, but are free to live our lives as we see fit otherwise. So many federal laws though over the years have trumped that and have torn it to shreds creating one big massive federal government. Which was NOT the original intent in the founding of this nation.

There again, you should know this. Anyone with a basic knowledge of American history should know this.

The point of the second amendment, was that if the Federal government became too big, if it became too overbearing upon the people of this nation, then it would be the people who would have the capability to stand up and overthrown the government to try and put one into place that restores said liberty to the people. This is the basic foundation of our nation and the rhetoric today makes it seem like that is something so evil. It's an idea that was passed on to us for the hope that we all would not become slaves to an out of control government. Look at our debt today and tell me this government is in control? I'm not talking about parties, I'm not talking about politics, I'm talking about the overall government itself. We can try and change the way it is politically, but if that doesn't work, we have two options. We can become complete slaves to the state or we have he option to fight back and take back what's rightfully ours. THAT is what the second amendment means.

Those who would jump in now and shoot random politicians are fools and idiots. All they do is increase the power of the state, so that 'we the people' are less armed and less capable of doing what is necessary, IF necessary at one point in time to FREE ourselves once again.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

the reality of life is no government like ours can self-sustain itself under the guise of liberty, because everyone has a different definition of what liberty is.

The problem with our current setup, came when people started trying to control on a federal level what other states are doing.

The whole point of the United States per se and to use an old term, is that we are all 'seperate but equal' - We all live under the constitution, but are free to live our lives as we see fit otherwise. So many federal laws though over the years have trumped that and have torn it to shreds creating one big massive federal government. Which was NOT the original intent in the founding of this nation.

There again, you should know this. Anyone with a basic knowledge of American history should know this.

The point of the second amendment, was that if the Federal government became too big, if it became too overbearing upon the people of this nation, then it would be the people who would have the capability to stand up and overthrown the government to try and put one into place that restores said liberty to the people. This is the basic foundation of our nation and the rhetoric today makes it seem like that is something so evil. It's an idea that was passed on to us for the hope that we all would not become slaves to an out of control government. Look at our debt today and tell me this government is in control? I'm not talking about parties, I'm not talking about politics, I'm talking about the overall government itself. We can try and change the way it is politically, but if that doesn't work, we have two options. We can become complete slaves to the state or we have he option to fight back and take back what's rightfully ours. THAT is what the second amendment means.

Those who would jump in now and shoot random politicians are fools and idiots. All they do is increase the power of the state, so that 'we the people' are less armed and less capable of doing what is necessary, IF necessary at one point in time to FREE ourselves once again.

Paul - let's start again shall we. Your contention was that Britain's government was some sort of repressive regime feared by the British public.

Once again, my reply:

You don't know very much about Britain. If people feared the government then people wouldn't be protesting on the streets about tuition fee rises, budget cuts and foreign policy.

You don't need a gun inside your home to ensure that those things continue to happen. That's the sort of romantic garbage the nra loves to peddle.

Britain doesn't have wide public ownership of firearms. We have an open society. Noone is scared of the government.

Edited January 10, 2011 by Ron Burgundy

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Four brave people stopped Loughner from reloading another 31 round magazine into his Glock. They were able to stop him because he finally ran out of bullets. High capacity magazines make it easy for mass killings like this to happen. Certainly we can find a reasonable compromise where someone can carry an adequate amount of rounds in order protect themselves while also thinking about the safety of the general public.

Had I been in the crowd I would have capped him off before he killed number 2. Too bad I don't go to Democrat rallies, eh? I would not wait until he ran out of bullets...I have no need to.

Paul - let's start again shall we. Your contention was that Britain's government was some sort of repressive regime feared by the British public.

Once again, my reply:

You don't know very much about Britain. If people feared the government then people wouldn't be protesting on the streets about tuition fee rises, budget cuts and foreign policy.

You don't need a gun inside your home to ensure that those things continue to happen. That's the sort of romantic garbage the nra loves to peddle.

Britain doesn't have wide public ownership of firearms. We have an open society. Noone is scared of the government.

Good for Britian. So what?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

You don't know very much about Britain. If people feared the government then people wouldn't be protesting on the streets about tuition fee rises, budget cuts and foreign policy.

You don't need a gun inside your home to ensure that those things continue to happen. That's the sort of romantic garbage the nra loves to peddle.

If you don't need a gun, then choose not to have one. You can even put a sign outside your house that says "NO GUNS IN THIS HOUSE" Your choice. I prefer to let the criminals guess who has a gun.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

You've hit it there. Obviously there is a major flaw in the security checks in acquiring firearms and that needs investigating. The magazine size is irrelevant because it can be planned around. Fully automatic is another story, and I can see why it is banned.

You are right that magazine size is irrelevent. You want someone shooting at you with a single shot rifle?

You are wrong about automatics. Automatics are legal and can be privately owned with a $200 transfer tax and federal registration. Unless banned by state law. Most states allow automatic (as opposed to "autoloading" or "semi-automatic") The really funny thing about the assault weapons "ban" (I mean besides the fact it didn't "ban" anything) was that it only affected firearms that LOOKED like assualt rifles. REAL assualt rifles (selective/automatic fire) were not affected at all and continued to be just as legal as before. It was a "ban" of certain cosmetic features of semi-auto firearms. A more useless law was never concocted.

If you are ever in the neighborhood of Louisville, KY on the 2nd weekend of April or October, go to the National Machine Gun shoot at Knob Creek Gun Range. Drive south from Louisville on Hwy 31W until you see the cars parked all along the highway for a mile or so. Get out and follow the crowd. Literally THOUSANDS of privately owned machine guns from all over the country on display and shooting! Great fun. A few years ago I owned a M1928 Thompson SMG. It was expensive but tons of fun to shoot! I was made an offer I could not refuse.

Incidentally you can also own sawed off shotguns, silencers and all that other "nasty" stuff with a background check and registration. Not a problem in particular. There has never been an instance of a legally owned automatic weapon being used in a crime.