In my personal opinion, now is the time. Other countries took action after mass shootings, yet the US continues to do nothing and the list of mass shootings keeps piling up. It's not about rights to own hunting guns or a weapon to protect yourself, it is about the ability for anyone with little effort to purchase assault rifles and high-end guns meant for spouting bullets at unbelievable speeds.

If the government tells us it is "banned" or "controlled", we must be safer....right? Wrong. Take Norway for example...just last year. Norway has very strict gun ownership laws. Very restrictive licensing. Hunting or sporting only, no concealed carry. One man carries out one of the deadliest shooting rampages in history...with just two firearms. Neither of which were so-called "assault weapons"! There was no "spouting of bullets at unbelievable speeds". He meticulously selected his targets for well over an hour...one by one. 179 people shot. Zero "automatic" weapons used. Zero "assault" weapons used. 69 people dead. Was it the result of a lack of "bans" or "gun control"? Clearly, no.

Disagree completely. In this world we live in which gets more congested and faster paced by the day, common courtesies that used to the norm decades ago have slowly dwindled. Now we see stories of soccer moms and little league dads going after refs, opposing teams parents, outbreaks of violence on a much more frequent basis... and to think that if more people carried, that would curb the violence? Nope... In todays world, where road rage is rampant, I think people would be more apt to give in to that rage. You put a weapon in there hands, that only increases the odds of gun related violence. And yes... you're right... people kill people. So if one wants to act out on another, better with their hands then with a gun. Its short sighted to think that MORE guns are the cure to society's ailments.

I understand the right to bear arms is in our Bill of Rights and hey... while not a gun owner myself, I have shot weapons before and enjoy it from a sporting point of view. So Im not necessarily against gun ownership. But I see no reason for a hobbyist to own an AK47 or military grade assault rifle with armor piercing rounds.

This killer ordered his ammo online and all he needed was a credit card. That is just TOO darn easy.

Amen! Most of the people that are doing these awful crimes are not the ones who are obtaining the guns legally and following all the proper licensing. It is a shame that the "law abiding" citizens who want to uphold their amendment rights are going to loose them to IDIOTS. Lets hope not.

The shooter in Colorado was not a "criminal" with illegal guns. He obtained his assault weapons legally. Can you tell me why a common citizen has a need for an AK47?

Mary Jane, do you really know what an AK47 is? Or, do you just have the sensationalized meaning that was fed to us by the left-leaning media? The semi-automatic AK47 is no more of a "deadly" or "killing machine" firearm than other arms of it's caliber. It's distinctive look and wide spread use in our current theaters of war have given the media an image that they can plaster on our screens and say "Look! This is the image of evil." It is very stereotypically portrayed in our country as the symbol of terrorists, gangsters or other evil-intents.
The Avtomat Kalashnikova began production, in Russia, in 1947. It has been produced by dozens of companies, in dozens of variants, in over 30 countries since then. They number in the millions, and are one of the most popular firearms worldwide.

OK thank you for the definition. Now try answering my question. Can you tell me why a common citizen has a need for an AK47?

Once again, you must not understand. An AK47 is just a brand name.
Why must a common citizen own a Porsche, when we could all just own a Honda?
Why must a person own an SUV, when we should all be content with a car?
Why own Prada shoes, when Payless will do?
There are rifles that are much more accurate than the AK's. There are bullets much faster and more destructive than that of the AK's.
Is there a need for Americans to have alcohol, tobacco, sugary treats, etc.? No, but we sure enjoy the freedoms to choose!
Now, do you see how nonsensical the question appears?

Tim,
Because you said the AK47 is one of the most popular weapons I asked about that particular weapon. If I asked you why someone should own a porshe I'd like to know about the porshe. Why won't you answer? Your superior knowledge of guns must allow you to have some idea of why the common person should need such a popular gun.

Mary Jane,
You are asking the same question in other parts of the blog...so, I'll paste my response here as well. That way you don't miss it and accuse me (again) of not answering to your question...

To have a debate about firearms, one must posses at least a basic knowledge of them. I'll help you, if you'd like.
The term "automatic" refers to a firearm that requires little more than the chambering of the first round and pulling the trigger. With the pulling (and holding) of the trigger, all subsequent rounds in the magazine will be automatically and mechanically chambered and fired until the magazine is empty. Commonly known as a "machine gun".
A semi-automatic firearm is similar in it's mechanics, with exception to it's firing mechanism. It requires a seperate and deliberate pull and release of the trigger for every round fired. It will fire only as fast as a person can repeatedly pull and release his/her finger. This is refered to as "semi-automatic".
Automatics are strictly controlled and banned in the majority of this country. Very strict licensing restrictions apply. Semi-automatics comprise the vast majority of firearms available and manufactured today, with the exception of revolvers, bolt-action rifles, and few others.
Semi-automatics offer the ability to fire follow-up shots rapidly, or facilitate the take down of additional targets quickly. Machine guns, although fun at the range, are probably best suited for military applications or defense against a multiple, and possibly overwhelming, threat.
Because of my preference and situational need, I carry semi-automatics.

Criminals not obeying the law is an interesting argument.

But, what about people with severe mental health issues or drug and alcohol abusers, who are not necessarily criminal by nature, but given easy access to guns might abuse the weapon while not in his or her right mind?

Good Point Margret
But shouldn't that issue be addressed separately and not just for guns. Those same people can easily access any kind of weapon. Someone who is intent on harming others will find a way.
There are over 15,000 deaths a year by drunk drivers and we haven't found a way to stop that.

* Driver's license

No one is denying that people who are bent on killing others will find a way. But why make it easier for them? My thought is, if a person loves guns and wants to collect of use them for sport shooting, hunting, etc... that's perfectly fine. But we're not buying candy in a candy store here. Its a deadly weapon. So for those who love firearms, and want to own one, go for it. Stricter laws should not stop you.

Because most people would agree that the Batman movie was not the cause of this. Its too easy to lay blame on the movie. The kid that did this did not do it BECAUSE he loved Batman and the violence thats in it. He did it because he is a screwed up, twisted kid. He could just has easily been shooting from a bell tower. The fact he picked a Batman movie to do it just give people something convenient to point the finger at. But how this kid got all these weapons, explosive devices and ammunition is a much bigger issue than whether or not the caped crusader served as the catalyst for this kid's rampage.

Then "most people" would be wrong, Ed. Your entire comment is a lovely exercise of projection - "too easy to lay blame on the movie", "give people something convenient to point the finger at", etc. Nonsense. You're doing the exact same thing.

But whatever, let's just "blame guns" - weapons that have been around for centuries - rather than laying the blame on our sick, soul-less society that glorifies violence in its movies, media, music and video games.

Could you explain why most people would be wrong? I need to understand your logic as I think it takes a far greater leaps in logic to assume that violent movies are what drove this guy to kill people then it is to assume that this kid must have had stressors in his life, beyond just the types of movies he watched, that caused him to snap.

I watch the same movies (Godfather, Pulp Fiction, Batman, etc...etc...) and like to indulge in first person shooters on my PC in my free time. Yet I would not even think of doing anything even remotely close to this now would many others.

Why would anyone go on a rampage? Perfectly sane person one minute, watches violent movies, and then decides to kill innocent people in one of the largest mass murders in our history? Or is it more likely that this kid had issues that far surpasses what movies he's watched?

Last thing... Im not blaming guns for why he went on his rampage. The guns aren't the reason WHY he did it. BUT... I am wondering why he was so easily able to amass his expansive aresenal in such a short amount of time.

His apartment was booby trapped with all kinds of trip wires and explosive devices. He ordered thousands upon thousands of rounds of ammo? And from what Ive been reading... he simply needed a credit card to complete the transaction as easily as buying a book off of Amazon. It should NEVER have been that easy.

First Ed, I'm not suggesting that the Batman movie was the cause if it. But I think it strains credulity to suggest that the proliferation of ludicrously violent video games (Saints Row, Grand Theft Auto, etc.) and hyper-violent movies (Pulp Fiction, Natural Born Killers, etc.) - both targeted (you'll excuse the expression, I hope) at teens and even pre-teens - has done anything other than to coarsen society and provide all the ammunition (another unfortunate expression) necessary for a sick, troubled person to do utterly awful, horrible things.

And yes, I'm equally curious as to how, with the 10's of thousands of gun laws already in place at the fed, state and local levels, this kid was able to amass such an arsenal in such a short time. Curious, and furious.

Those laws, many of which are perfectly sound, are there for a reason. Maybe our elected officials would be better serving us if they were investigating the apparent systemic breakdowns that led to this accumulation rather than throwing food at each other over "gun control", eh?

I won't address the rest because they're not my arguments, they're yours. Cheers -

Thank you, Tim!

So do we know if the same restrictions apply in Colorado? Are there not some states who have very few restrictions?

Mary Jane,
A google search is all it takes to get all of your answers in less than .00263 seconds.
I have to imagine you are on a web enabled device of some sort, but here is a link to get you started...
http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/StatePatrol-Main/CBON/1251594549010

So, in other words, there is no gun handling training requirement in Colorado. I have been less concerned with Massachusetts as I think guns are far less popular here. But in states with almost no regulations I have concerns. Perhaps if we had uniform requirements across the nation we would have better protection.

Again, just type your inquiry into a search field on your browser. Colorado's laws are not so much different than MA's. Training certification is required in most states to obtain a LTC. Here is another link to help you out...
http://www.denvergov.org/Portals/720/documents/ConcealedWeapon/ccwinfopacket.pdf
Most importantly, understand that there is no law that will prevent a crazy with criminal intent from getting his hands on a gun and using it. The restrictions that we have in place right now are about as good as it can get.

Question: Is a 20 oz hammer more dangerous than a 12 oz hammer?

Perhaps not. But at least there would not be any other avenue for the crazies to get a gun except through black market means. A crazy guy wants to buy a gun, then make him go to some back room somewhere and deal with some shady character to get it. But to let him get it at a Walmart? No way.

Gun control won't take the guns away from the crazies, only from honest people who obey the law. Gun control is not about guns, it's about control. All you need to do is to ask the good people of England, or Australia what happens when you disarm the people. Crime rises dramatically, Scumbags prefer their victims to be unarmed, makes for easy pickings.....

John. I never said take guns away. I like shooting recreationally from time to time myself. All Im saying is don't make it so darn easy. True gun enthusiasts who feel strongly about gun ownership and who abide by laws will still be able acquire there items. But to allow people to purchase explosive and large quantities of ammo like there are ordering books from Amazon is unthinkable. They should be required to prove they possess a valid gun license, they should have to wait 24 hours for a background check (so it takes an extra day to receive your items... big deal), and maybe even cap the amount of ammo they can buy.

There are two extremes to this argument.. Neigher one is valid. Total gun control... (ie... making it totally illegal for all) and NO gun control at all, which is the argument some of you are making. NO Control at all is NOT a good thing and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.

For entertainment purposes, I have to ask...How do you define "assault weapons"? And, I propose this same question to anyone who is in favor of miraculously "taking away" the millions of "assault weapons" in this world.
But, a little education before you answer.....
*the bullet travels at the same velocity whether one is fired, or thirty.
*"semi-automatic" requires the trigger to be pulled for each round fired.
*I can pull the trigger six times just as fast with a semi-auto as on an old revolver...does that make a revolver an "assault" "weapon of war"?
*The thugs that you read about in the police reports are real. They are not just a sad news story from somewhere far away from your home. They are in your neighborhoods. They are armed. They have no respect for you, your childeren, or your home. They have no respect for the law. They have not a care in the world about "gun laws", because they don't pertain to them. They have no license to own or carry a gun. They LITERALLY laugh at the mention of "gun control laws". All that means to them is their victims will be easier prey because they will be law-abiding UNARMED citizens.

Jeanne, You hit the nail on the head. Nanakate

"manufactured and controlled by the government"? Really? What government? If you do a tiny bit of research, you will discover that "War grade weapons" are being manufactured and controlled by government...by the millions, in fact. Where you ask? In your favorite government-knows-best countries like China, Russia, Czech R, etc... So, how's that working?

My view is only to allow the type of guns that were available when the constitution was written. If you can only put 1 shell in the guy, and you have to put the powder, wadding, ... in, it takes several minutes before you can fire. Plenty of time for a person to run away, or to subdue the person with the gun. There is no need in society for a gun that shoots multiple bullets, other than to kill people needlessly. You can hunt with a gun which takes 2 minutes to load 1 bullet, no need for a 100 bullets to take out a deer or a dog. The constitution was written before cell phones, running water, autos, planes, toilets and social security. If you use all the modern conveniences of life, you don't need a 200 year old gun permit, which wiped out native peoples and animals. Is that civilized?

Please don't compromise the freedom of innocent people going about their lives, for the sake of those who...are nut-bags and shoot people!
If you are stating that gun owners ("assualt" or not) are not innocent people....wow.
Please, give us your definition of "assault weapon".

Well said Heidi. I particularly like your points regarding laws that restrict freedom so that the society as a whole is made more free. That's 100% correct. I think some people confuse the freedom we are granted in this country with ABSOLUTE freedom. The laws are meant to protect people. If a person is able to buy gun ammo online without proof of any permit, or without any background check of any kind because no laws exist to prevent it, then that is where a law is needed.

I don't care if it makes it harder for the rest.

After 9/11 people understood the need for heightened security. We lost certain freedoms for the comfort of feeling a bit safer as a whole. At the time, people excepted this and even WANTED this. Now, with no further attacks on our soil and a whole decade since 9/11, people seem to criticize airline security for many of its procedures now, citing the attack on our freedom.

Well, we just had a domestic form of terrorism from someone who access weaponry no one person should ever be able to amass. We need to find out why and enact laws that make it that much more difficult, if not impossible If that means tighter laws on selling ammo, increased background checks and waiting periods, so be it.

Very well stated. An intelligent argument that anyone with two brain cells to rub together should understand and agree with. Have you considered running for political office? I'd love a few smart, plain speaking people to be on the ballot in November.

So you're against the war on drugs? Would we be better off without drug laws and make all drugs legal? If you think that, then you could make the same argument for most things.

For example, look at texting and driving, drinking and driving, speeding, etc.... We didn't have laws on texting until people starting dying as a result of it. We have laws against drunk driving and speeding for the same reasons. We enforce those laws the best we can, yet some people still drive drunk, text, and speed. Does that mean we should eliminate those laws too?

Bank robbery, murder, drunk driving, etc. are criminal offenses. Owning, legally, a firearm is not a criminal offense. I am glad our laws aren't based on sensationalism [sarcasm]!

That's right. They are criminial offenses? And why is that? They are criminal because they are AGAINST THE LAW. Make them legal, then they are no longer, in the eyes of the law at least, criminal.

So making certain guns illegal to own makes the act of owning that particular gun criminal. But Im not advocating that ALL guns be made illegal. I believe Ive made the point many times.

So do you carry an automatic or semi-automatic? You seem unwilling to say when those guns are appropriate.

To have a debate about firearms, one must posses at least a basic knowledge of them. I'll help you, if you'd like.
The term "automatic" refers to a firearm that requires little more than the chambering of the first round and pulling the trigger. With the pulling (and holding) of the trigger, all subsequent rounds in the magazine will be automatically and mechanically chambered and fired until the magazine is empty. Commonly known as a "machine gun".
A semi-automatic firearm is similar in it's mechanics, with exception to it's firing mechanism. It requires a seperate and deliberate pull and release of the trigger for every round fired. It will fire only as fast as a person can repeatedly pull and release his/her finger. This is refered to as "semi-automatic".
Automatics are strictly controlled and banned in the majority of this country. Very strict licensing restrictions apply. Semi-automatics comprise the vast majority of firearms available and manufactured today, with the exception of revolvers, bolt-action rifles, and few others.
Semi-automatics offer the ability to fire follow-up shots rapidly, or facilitate the take down of additional targets quickly. Machine guns, although fun at the range, are probably best suited for military applications or defense against a multiple, and possibly overwhelming, threat.
Because of my preference and situational need, I carry semi-automatics.

That's beside the point Tim. No one is saying that more stringent laws would totally prevent gun related violence. It won't (and it would be naive to think so). There is literally no solution to eliminating ALL gun violence. Even making ALL guns everywhere wouldn't solve the problem completely as guns would be acquired illegally for sure.

The point on assault weapons is this. Who, besides our military and police need them? Your being a member of the NRA.. does this mean you think people should be allowed to buy grenade launchers and insendiary devices if they wish?

There are somethings people may want that the law doesn't allow us to have. That's the way its always been and always will be and I have no problem with that.

Own a gun or a rifle if you want... enjoy it. But don't think this country is any less free just because it prohibits you from buying any darn explosive or item that fires a bullet that you wish.

An intentional exaggeration. The point is where do you draw the line. You're quibbling on my exaggeration but not answering the actual questions I pose which was the more common issue which is that of fully automatic weapons. Why are these available? Because its our right to blow things up in less than a few seconds?

And does not being able to own this highpowered, fully automatic weapon mean that our country is now less free?

I mean, fully automatic weapons are overkill for home protection IMO and not even allowed in most sport shooting contests so again.. what's the point?

If being denied certain firearms is still what you consider unfair and that view is a representative opinion of most within the NRA, than it seems like that would suggest NRA members simply want it all.

Sorry... I think there should be limits.

Your freedom to own a firearm is not being taken away just because there are stricter regulations on how to acquire one or certain weapons are being denied to you.

Until they make gun ownership totally illegal, you rights to bear arms still exist. Just within the confines of certain laws.

You are correct. This is the equivalent of banning Toyota vehicles for the reason that most drunk driving fatalities occur in Toyotas. It is a totally misguided attempt to instill a sense of safety amongst a willfully weakening society.

Who said anything about banning guns completely?

And Tim. " A weakening society"? So if we don't arm ourselves to the hilt with fireharms, we're a weak society?

Please.

Well, I agree with you there actually. I too often feel that way. I feel that way about debt and that whole insane Big Gulp soft drink thing you are eluding too. Absurd. In fact, the town of Lexington just past a town law that bans the use of leaf blowers. Why? Because they make to much noise.

And I think, when it comes to guns, it can be that way too at times (not in this case for Aurora mind you). Some young people get guns from their parents who don't secure them properly. They let the kids know where there ammo is. So in cases like that, although Im sure the parents surely don't condone their child's grabbing their gun and shooting folks, if that happens because of negligence on the part of the parents, then they are partially to blame for their son (or daughter's) actions.

In those cases, people still yell for bans on guns. But they shouldn't in those cases. They should be putting the blame on both the shooter of the weapon and the parent that left it lying out on a counter because he was waiting for the gun oil to dry or something.