Aurora Colorado - Will Someone Please Explain This To Me.

I am not an anti gun fanatic and, in fact, have owned guns in the past.

There will be many explanations in the coming days and weeks as to what caused this seemingly normal, even exceptional, young may to become a monster.

If my numbers are correct 12 people are dead and over 50 others injured. So I ask my NRA friends to explain to me why was the death toll so high. Do I blame gun ownership for this tragedy, NO. Would it have happened to some degree anyway? Probably.

So this is what I want to know. Is it necessary for Colorado and so many other states to allow the sale of semi automatic assault rifles? Why can anyone legally buy a drum magazine for these rifles. These damn things can hold 100 rounds. Why?

I am sure that no matter what something would occurred last night but why so many? Even if he was just required to reload would so many have died. Someone please explain this to me. If one life would have been spared if we were just slightly rational about what can be sold in our gun stores would that not be reasonable.

Please, I really want to know. Please don't tell me he was sick, of course he was. But he was armed with a legally available firearm that seems to have no other purpose than mass slaughter. Will someone please explain this to me or, tragically, is there no reasonable explanation at all.

 

I'll admit I'm not in favour of guns nor will I go on about human psychology and guns as I've spoken too many times before about it.

But in an attempt to answer your question Barry, I can only assume the reason to sell semi-automatic rifles is money, it keeps the American war machine churning weaponry out to sell to the US public, collect taxes, guns must carry a good amount of tax dollars to pay for the US Armed forces and additionally they can sell to the rest of the Worlds armies which in turn supports these US companies (I wouldn't be surprised if there is some sort of weapons production facility in Colorado, for the state to allow sale of them) & numerous jobs.

US companies dominate the Defence industry and with large amounts of jobs depending on these companies I don't see them ever stopping the sale of all types of guns, even now the $500bn cuts by the US Federal government could supposedly lose upto 2 million jobs so with a defence budget over twice that and the rest of the world as well I wouldn't be surprised if over 10 million US jobs rely on the defence industry directly or indirectly, it would mean a politician needs to grow a spine and bite the bullet so to speak, it would lose some US jobs but would save more lives from tragic shootings like this.
But no politician in the US would do that with such short terms in office, in two years the two major parties can lose the Senate or House of Representatives because of the Biennial elections which doesn't exactly encourage medium-long term decision making, I do know they serve 4 (Representatives) or 6 (Senate) year terms, the UK system isn't perfect but at least with 4-5 years between General elections it encourages more medium term decision making in a way at least.

 

IF only Just one in that theater was carrying a loaded gun at the time this maniac was firing away,
im sure , a few lifes would have been saved.
kayrose


THINK of the possibility of there being more.

 

That is simply the idiotic mantra of the NRA. What if there were 2 or 3 people with loaded guns? The odds favor them shooting each other or more innocent people. Only one person in that theater knew what was going on.

I agree that whole groups of people should be armed to the teeth. I think they call them the Police.

 

I don't think there is a definitive answer to your question, i think maybe the question that needs to be asked is why is this sort of thing happening more and more world wide. and even then i think their would be a number of answers to that question.but what I do believe is until the question is answered this will become more and more common until at some point the powers that be are forced to act.

 

Regarding issues like this, and it has been already pointed out there seem to be more of them happening, there are many questions with unfortunately also too many answers, which go against each other and just causing confusion.

We can all have different opinions about why nutcases do it, we can all have different opinions about how to prevent the nutcases doing it.

The UK tightened up the law and made it nearly impossible to legally own such weaponry and maybe it has worked to some extent, as we haven't yet seen this sort of madman made massacre.

However you can still get them via the black market and many of the criminal fraternity do so. Fortunately though they haven't yet been used in this sort of atrocity, but it won't be long before some suicidal terrorist fanatic does so, as it is more likely to be a terrorist activity rather than a lone lunatic one.

Lone lunatic and fanatical terrorist may seem similar, but politically not so. The lone lunatic does it because the voices in his head said so or for other mentally disturbed reasons. The terrorist does it for political or religious reasons.

Just my thoughts on it.

Nev.

 

When James Madison drafted the 2nd Amendment in 1788 / 89 - I don't think it was intended that US citizens be allowed to own weapons of war.
Until the US law-makers decide to re-write it - there is always the possibility that another tragedy is waiting to happen.

 

i think the Atrocity we see on television and in movies is a bad element in our childrens lives.

I really dont have a word for these kind of television programs and movies,
but they are hazardous to Our youth
and
and YES even hazardous to us.

kayrose

Very bad influence !

 

If someone is determined enough to commit a massacre then no gun law will stop them.
There will always be a black market.
These copy cat killings are going to be committed by these sick people because they want to become famous for all the wrong reasons.
We live in a violent World.

 

I see no underlying proof or argument for this, through out life we are all exposed to increasingly graphic media, films, games, media coverage, in fact what was shocking 20 years ago is now laughably boring, the truth being that 99% of people can distinguish between reality and fantasy, in fact I would be more concerned about people who are exposed to atrocities in reality then allowed to be back in society, ie solders, Afghan, Iraq and Vietnam wars spring to mind, refugee's and asylum seekers also have seen the reality of violence, and especially in the asylum group this would include young children. yet you never here of these people buying guns and mindlessly killing innocent people.

I think this statement is very true the UK has some of the strictest gun laws in the world and yet they didn't prevent the Dunblane school massacre or the Hungerford massacre to me the problem lies with societies pressure to fit a predefined stereo type and to succeed in life. and unfortunately for their to be winners their has to be losers, and if you have never been taught to cope with failure then your heading down the road to depression, mental breakdown etc

 

Possibly some of this extravagant purchasing of his material (guns,ammunition, etc) should have been reported to authorities.
Those that were in the know of this failed to do thier duty.

POssibly could have saved this from happening.
kayrose

 

With all due respect I think we are actually a bit off topic. First I really wasn't asking for an explanation I was being sardonic or at least trying to be.

I have no better answer than anyone else about what causes people to become deranged. I doubt that it can be generalized. What I am suggesting is that many of our states simply make this kind of monstrous event too easy. Gun control would not have stopped this guy. I know that. We all do. But proper rational gun control may have saved some lives in that theater. Maybe this kid was streetwise enough to buy all the same gear illegally. But maybe he wasn't. The fact that he is deranged does not mean that he would know who to contact to buy an assault rifle or a drum magazine.

This guy shot close to 70 people in a very short time. That is because he could fire off between 50 and 60 rounds per minute with that one weapon alone. Perhaps if he only had something as simple as a few 15 round clips for that gun then, maybe, 50 people would have been shot, or 40 or 30 etc.

Of course if one is bent on killing then one is going to kill. But do we have to make it so easy to roll up the body count. Perhaps a few more young people would have slept in their own beds that night and not be resting in the morgue or in a hospital ICU.

I don't know what the motivation was and may never know. This kind of thing is going to happen. But in this case simply proves that the people who claim that "guns don't kill people do" need a dose of reality.

Finally the suggestion that having more people armed in the theater would have put an end to this earlier. I would prefer my odds of survival in a theater that was about to be attacked than I would being in a theater where all sorts of people were carrying guns. How many of our children die on the battlefield from "friendly fire."

The last thing I want is for some gun nut to take things into his hands in a crowded smoke filled theater. With my luck I would just be killed in the crossfire by some clown fireing away at the wrong target.

 

I WILL admit , your post did get us alll riled up(Concernd) on as to WHY??????????
beeceebee