Posted on 07/23/2012 7:42:41 AM PDT by servo1969
There are weekends in Chicago where more people get killed than were killed in this Colorado theater.
Oddly, the exact same people who brought us that weekly slaughter, which has become so commonplace as to no longer be newsworthy, point to this incident as “proof more gun control is needed.”
Public safety is the LAST thing on their minds. They want the entire country to look like South Chicago.
(For some reason the link below was selected - and i posted this there) - Time for more coffee...
Emotional responses from liberals never achieve what we expect - only that our freedoms are taken away and our life is control just a bit more by the govt.
Taking away firearms isn’t going to solve this problem. If it wasn’t a gun that did the shooting - then he would have gone out and purchased gos and mixed up Molotov cocktails with it and burned the place down...then what - a ban on fuel???
It will always be something - I say legal Concealed Carry Permits - I have one - and I carry everywhere! The Wild West hasn’t gone anywhere - it’s just more populated!
Utah has the second highest gun ownership rate in the country and the eighth lowest homicide rate. Wyoming, the state with the fourth highest gun ownership rate has the fourth lowest homicide rate. Meanwhile New York is 48th in gun ownership, but is the 18th highest in its murder rate.Anybody have a link to the raw data here, preferably a single table that shows gun ownership and homicide rate side-by-side for all 57 states.
I searched for the article title and got nothing.
So I posted it.
Sorry.
Bloomberg...one of the most breathtakingly anti-liberty politicians of the modern era.
It’s called power of a few.
To revisit the “Assault Weapons” Ban:
1. The AR-15 was specifically banned for ten years, so the rifle model used in the shooting was illegal from 1984 to 2004. During that time period, this nutcase would have had to choose a rifle with a different name.
2. Also banned were semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Bayonet mount
* Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
* Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those which are mounted externally)
In other words, a near clone weapon with exactly the same capabilities as the rifle used in this shooting would have been legal even under the “assault weapons” ban.
3. Also banned were semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
* Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
* Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
* Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
* Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
* A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm
I have seen no indication that the pistols purchased or in particular the one used would have violated this part of the ban.
4. Also banned were semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
* Detachable magazine
Again, I see no indication that his shotgun was covered by the ban.
My question: exactly what real purpose do liberals claim the Assault Weapons Ban would serve that liberals are frothing at the mouth to get it reinstated, or is this just a first step toward their dream of gun grabbing with nothing beyond emotion to justify it?
...guns have been continuously manufactured since about 1350. There is centuries of proof that criminals and other assorted bad people are not about to turn in their guns just because politicians want them too...
...in light of this, why should people who are inclined to provide protection for themselves be forced to rely in spastic "police protection".
I don't think gun control will go far these days anyway. Most of the pols in Congress are there because it is absolutely the best paying job that they can get. It was proved in '94 that voting "for" gun control is a good way to lose. IMO, it is the same now.
To Members of Congress:
Be sure that you can do without your job if you intend to vote FOR any kind of "gun control".
ping
Amen.
To illustrate: What model Glock did Cain use to kill his brother?
In other news, there were 41 murders in Chicago last month.
It is still safer to go to a movie than to get into a car.
Reminds me of the scene in Pleasantville where the mayor lists the colors that may not be used when painting.
So much time is spent on trying to figure the motive of devious action…from rational thought how does one formulate reason of irrational action? To understand they conjecture is to stop evil from happening, yet they refuse to destroy the villains they already know…..
I haven't read the above long article and probably won't, but the above statement is one of the dumbest and most often repeated ever uttered by humans (and especially by politicians) following most any atrocity or tragedy where there was loss of life.
The statement has been uttered after numerous school shootings and other mass murders, but such events continue to happen again.
If politicians and 'leaders' could wean themselves of that preposterous statement, maybe they could engage in clearer thinking about what realistic steps are possible to reduce the probability that such things will happen again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.