Let's think about Fate's argument that if the shooter did not have a 100 round clip he might have brought more guns and the carnage would have worse. I'll accept Fate's contention that these clips have a tendency to jam. First of all, a gunman could always have more guns even if he has one with a 100 round clip (this one did). Secondly, if the gun does not jam then he could shoot that whole clip within two minutes, whereas if he had other sem-automatic guns with 10 round clips he would haveto stop and reload or go to another gun. Everytime he reloaded or changed guns, moreover, he would be vulnerable to attack as he did so. So, clearly, a gunman with a 100 round clip has more potential to kill people than a gunman who has more guns even accounting for the chance of that 100 round clip jamming.

The people that commit mass murders typically are not criminals so the usual argument that criminals can get any kind of gun do not apply. The only question is whether getting rid of that 100 round clip infringes on law owner rights and I see no argument for that. The reality is that the 100 round clip is opposed for profit reasons by gun manfacturers and to the extent gun owners oppose them it is based on slippery slope concerns.

As for people carrying guns, could you imagine people in that crowded theater taking shots at him? Colorado has liberal concealed carry laws so there could have been someone armed in that theater. I just wonder if we want relatively untrained people taking shots in a crowded movie theater? I think law enforcement would not be too happy about it.

It is very disappointing that our society is getting so polarized that we cannot agree on the margins of issues where agreement should be clear.

bbauska wrote:Was the gun related violence in Switzerland comparable...

We're talking here about individuals who lose touch with reality, usually via a form of paranoia, and act out via mass murder. In the USA we seem to have about one such case a year. The population of Switzerland is 1/39th the population of the USA. If they've had just one nutcase with a gun in my lifetime, that would make them "comparable". Even if they didn't, it wouldn't prove much.

I'm not saying the USA might not have some very serious problems, or that Switzerland's culture might not insulate them from such incidents in some way. I'm just warning against drawing too strong a conclusion from a difference that has little statistical significance.

freeman2 wrote:The people that commit mass murders typically are not criminals so the usual argument that criminals can get any kind of gun do not apply.

So, criminals are not the problem? Hmm, interesting. How would you explain the carnage in Chicago?

And, if you are correct, that it's not criminals performing these mass shootings, you propose what? Restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens to prevent them from going nuts?

The only question is whether getting rid of that 100 round clip infringes on law owner rights and I see no argument for that. The reality is that the 100 round clip is opposed for profit reasons by gun manfacturers and to the extent gun owners oppose them it is based on slippery slope concerns.

That seems a moonbat theory. How many 100 round clips are sold? What's the price and what's the profit margin?

As for people carrying guns, could you imagine people in that crowded theater taking shots at him?

Why yes, yes I could. How many innocent folks were standing/sitting next to him as he fired away?

Now, suppose the gun did not jam. Would more have been wounded by "friendly fire" than by him? Furthermore, if the rounds are hollow-points, they are far less likely to penetrate walls and wound people in adjacent theaters.

Colorado has liberal concealed carry laws so there could have been someone armed in that theater. I just wonder if we want relatively untrained people taking shots in a crowded movie theater? I think law enforcement would not be too happy about it.

How many law enforcement folks were in that theater? If none, why would they be upset?

Relatively untrained? How much training did the shooter have?

It is very disappointing that our society is getting so polarized that we cannot agree on the margins of issues where agreement should be clear.

The Second Amendment is not a marginal issue. It's frightening that the Left's first response to these matters is to try and link the Tea Party to them (see Gabby Giffords shooting). Its second response is to call for gun control that will affect innocent people far more than anyone else.

Freeman2,
As a person who has been in enough firefights to know a thing or two about weapons (as well as it being my field in the military), I would have to agree that the high volume magazines do jam more. Also, a magazine change takes a short period of time (less than 1 second), and during that time, there is not enough response time to come out of cover and return fire. So the magazine change argument is moot. The issue is not the weapons.

Purple,
I understand the statistical difference in numbers between the US and Switzerland. You are looking at mass murder incidents. Take a look at gun violence in whole compared to Switzerland. I think you will see the Swiss less violent.

Talk about movig the goalposts...I'm not trying to address the carnage in Chicago I am trying to address mass murder by a lone deranged gunman. Nice try, Fate.

Yes, the gunman is able to shoot someone even though he is untrained; however, when talking about people taking shots at hime we have to be concerned that they are trained so that they don't shoot other people. As for law enforcement, I was talking about law enforcement coming into the theater not only having to worry about the gunman but other people in the theater taking wild shots at the gunman.

I don't know that gun manufacturers have a concern about 100 round clips per se but they will oppose any restrictions on gun control in a concern about profits.

And if 100 round clips jam so much what is the problem with banning them. I have read in several place that the magazine seen with the gun was a 30 round anyway--do these jam, too?

Brad, maybe you could change clips in a second not sure if someone who is not in law enforcement or the military in a dark movie theater could.

I am not espousing any personal expertise. I am saying that the magazine argument is moot because of the reasons I gave.

As for the magazine size issue, a 100 jams more that a 30 which jams more than a 15. A 7 jams more than a 15 because the springs are often compacted so much that the end of the magazine spring tension is not enough to force the incoming round into the chamber.

Not at all, nor did I say it was. However, when the President talks about how vital such "investments" are, I think we have the right to examine our ROI.

So let me get this straight Steve. Are you actually saying here that the guy's being given a scholarship by the staten was a contributory factor to his going nuts and murdering people ? If not, then why exactly do you describe it is part of the 'ROI' ? In fact, why even mention the scholarship at all ?

Purple wrote:

bbauska wrote:Was the gun related violence in Switzerland comparable...

We're talking here about individuals who lose touch with reality, usually via a form of paranoia, and act out via mass murder. In the USA we seem to have about one such case a year. The population of Switzerland is 1/39th the population of the USA. If they've had just one nutcase with a gun in my lifetime, that would make them "comparable". Even if they didn't, it wouldn't prove much.

They did have one. In 2001 a guy shot up his regional parliament, killing 14. His main weapon was not army-issue (but was a copy of the standard Swiss military rifle), and all of his guns were legally held.

I'm not saying the USA might not have some very serious problems, or that Switzerland's culture might not insulate them from such incidents in some way. I'm just warning against drawing too strong a conclusion from a difference that has little statistical significance.

I guess the main difference is that Switzerland has full conscription (every able man must go through basic training and be a reservist with regular training), and so everyone is well trained with guns. Including when not to use them. Guns are seen as tools, for defence or for hunting, but are not fetishised.

I have to say I'm not impressed by the argument that 'if other people had guns, he would have been dealt with quicker'. A salient example is the attack on Gifford:

The gunman was subdued (when he was changing clips) by an unarmed man. However, an armed citizen came upon the scene shortly afterwards and having heard shots saw a guy pointing a weapon at another. Instead of firing, he subdued the armed man - who was the guy who had taken Loughner's weapon from him. Had he shot the guy, Loughner could have retrieved his weapon, got away, or at best a hero would have been injured in error.

The problem with the fantasy that 'if just one guy had a gun, they could have shot the gunman and ended it' is that it's not realistic. Cops are trained to shoot, and yet most of the time in live situations they will miss a target with one shot (because it's not easy to hit a moving target at a time of stress). Confusion could mean the wrong target is shot at. Given that the screening room was smokey, dark and noisy, if two potential heroes had decided to stand up and fire at the assailant, one of them could have fired at the other in error.

Just because it may work in movies, doesn't mean it would have worked in that cinema (or any other mass shooting).

As it goes, are there any examples where the intervention of an armed civilian has demonstrably reduced the effect of such a mass-killing? How many compared to those where unarmed people have managed to apprehend a gumnan (as well as the Gifford shooter, I believe there was another where a gunman was shooting in a church)

Sassenach wrote:

Not at all, nor did I say it was. However, when the President talks about how vital such "investments" are, I think we have the right to examine our ROI.

So let me get this straight Steve. Are you actually saying here that the guy's being given a scholarship by the staten was a contributory factor to his going nuts and murdering people ? If not, then why exactly do you describe it is part of the 'ROI' ? In fact, why even mention the scholarship at all ?

Next thing we'll find out that it was all down to Obama. Perhaps he expanded that very scheme, knowing full well it would be funding a nutjob...

An unrelated shooting occurred recently in upstate NY. A guy was in his motel room. Shortly after midnight, someone entered the room, the guy awoke and shot the intruder.

Turns out the 'intruder' was the guy's son, and that both were cops. An utter tragedy. It shows that a split second decision with a gun, in perceived self-defence or that of others, can have terrible repercussions.

freeman2 wrote:Talk about movig the goalposts...I'm not trying to address the carnage in Chicago I am trying to address mass murder by a lone deranged gunman. Nice try, Fate.

Who is moving the goalposts?

Gun control. Chicago. Massive.

Results. Useless.

Do the math.

Yes, the gunman is able to shoot someone even though he is untrained; however, when talking about people taking shots at hime we have to be concerned that they are trained so that they don't shoot other people. As for law enforcement, I was talking about law enforcement coming into the theater not only having to worry about the gunman but other people in the theater taking wild shots at the gunman.

They didn't make it into the theater, so your point, IF you want to stay focused on Aurora, is moot.

I don't know that gun manufacturers have a concern about 100 round clips per se but they will oppose any restrictions on gun control in a concern about profits.

Thank you for refuting your own argument.

Brad, maybe you could change clips in a second not sure if someone who is not in law enforcement or the military in a dark movie theater could.

Practice.

Sassenach wrote:

Not at all, nor did I say it was. However, when the President talks about how vital such "investments" are, I think we have the right to examine our ROI.

So let me get this straight Steve. Are you actually saying here that the guy's being given a scholarship by the staten was a contributory factor to his going nuts and murdering people ? If not, then why exactly do you describe it is part of the 'ROI' ? In fact, why even mention the scholarship at all ?

Why is he in Colorado?

To go to grad school.

Would he be in grad school if not for the Federal government?

No.

If he were at home, might his parents have intervened?

Maybe.

While I am not blaming the Federal government, he would not have been in CO without said "investment."

danivon wrote:Perhaps he expanded that very scheme, knowing full well it would be funding a nutjob...

Intriguing theory.

Oh come on ! That's a spectacularly feeble argument. You're way more intelligent than that and normally make arguments that are more cogent and relevant by orders of magnitude. As such it seems suspiciously like trolling to me.

Sassenach wrote:Oh come on ! That's a spectacularly feeble argument. You're way more intelligent than that and normally make arguments that are more cogent and relevant by orders of magnitude. As such it seems suspiciously like trolling to me.

Allow me to reframe.

1. Liberals blame guns.

2. There are many more gun owners than there are people on this kind of federal grant.

3. Why not blame the federal grant? It makes at least as much sense as blaming guns.