Not quite quiet on gun front

[SecularMotion]

Any commentary suggesting restrictions on guns is guaranteed to draw return fire, and my Aug. 8 take on the Sikh temple massacre in Wisconsin set off a representative fusillade from those who brook no deviance from the will of the arms industry.

Just to be sporting, I thought I would draw a bead on the arguments discharged in this latest round.

In a futile effort to stop criminals and insane people from committing violence, you want to take guns away from millions of law-abiding Americans.

There's no suggestion, or chance, of confiscating guns from legal owners or reducing our ocean of firearms to a lake. The modest proposals include raising the bar for purchases, keeping military-capacity weapons off the open market and limiting the number of guns that can be bought at one time (and thus resold on the street).

http://www.indystar.com/article/20120814/OPINION05/208150309/Dan-Carpenter-Not-quite-quiet-gun-front

[Reasonable_Argument]

1. In your hurry to spam the forums this morning

You messed up your link.

[Reasonable_Argument]

2. Well since you fixed your link...

Most of the article is just opinion and the same back and forth we see here, so I won't bother to comment on that. This however:

The Second Amendment applies to a citizen army, which we no longer have.

I understand not liking the Heller decision, but pretending it doesn't exist doesn't make it magically go away when trying to build your argument.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. The hypocrisy of the strict constructionist original intent camp on the court is amazing.

The constitution is not to be interpreted for relevance in a changing world, it is to be interpreted only to understand the original intent of the authors, except when that isn't convenient, as in heller.

The fact that you all celebrate this court says a lot.

[Reasonable_Argument]

6. Your argument would be relevant

Except that I feel they DID uphold the amendment's original intent.

[ileus]

4. military capacity...now that's a new one.

[GreenStormCloud]

5. Nothing new. Another gun-grabber thinks he can solve crime by restricting guns.

And the guns he wants to restrict aren't the ones being used for most crime.

[Atypical Liberal]

7. Bans on future sales are just as bad as confiscation.

In a futile effort to stop criminals and insane people from committing violence, you want to take guns away from millions of law-abiding Americans.

There's no suggestion, or chance, of confiscating guns from legal owners or reducing our ocean of firearms to a lake. The modest proposals include raising the bar for purchases, keeping military-capacity weapons off the open market and limiting the number of guns that can be bought at one time (and thus resold on the street).

OK, you need to understand that bans on future sales are just as bad, and just as unacceptable as confiscation.

It's not acceptable to say, "Hey, you can keep all of your firearms, but future generations can never buy an AR15."

This is what happened to machine guns in 1986, and as a result an M16 today costs nearly $20,000.

I'm not going to sell out my children's future just for the "gift" that I can keep what I already own.

[DonP]

9. That's a typical gun control version of "Common sense compromise"

They let us keep most of what we already have and they'll only take some of our guns and rights now and come back for the rest later.

That's why every time I hear that we are all being hard ass about it and how about making some kind of compromise with them, I ask what are they willing to give up first? I never, ever get an answer to that one.

Funny that.

[aikoaiko]

8. This column is another great example of why gun control expansionists are failing so miserably.

I love the hilarity of the first point. "I'm not taking away your guns. I only want to take away your ability to acquire some new guns ( popular ones with popular accessory configurations) and not let you buy two at the same time (or even within a months time).

What a doofus.

[rrneck]

10. If you cant write your own stuff

could you at least lift work from others who are able to make sense?

[SecularMotion]

11. Hi stalker

[Jenoch]

12. You seem to be suggesting

that anyone replying to yours posts is 'stalking' you. You do understand that the whole point of this site is that people create posts and others reply to those posts, don't you?

[spayneuter]

13. Only if the reply isn't verbal fellatio, apparently...

[rl6214]

14. The only ones he/she replies to with this "hi stalker" are those of us that comment how he/she

only spams the group and makes no comment on the article at all.

Stalker #1 here

[spin]

15. I found one question asked in the article very interesting and the answer somewhat uninformed. ...

Last edited Wed Sep 12, 2012, 04:29 AM - Edit history (1)

Armed citizens prevent millions of crimes every year. If there had been such a person in that theater in Aurora, Colo., the gunman could have been taken out pronto.

It is impossible to believe a packed movie theater in Colorado had nobody packing. My guess is that any such folks dove for cover in the face of that one-man army.

Statistics for "defensive gun uses," as the authorities term it, are highly contested. Nor does a defensive gun use in and of itself mean that a crime was thwarted. With "stand your ground" laws, the virtue of this do-it-yourself fancy is all the murkier.
http://www.indystar.com/article/20120814/OPINION05/208150309/Dan-Carpenter-Not-quite-quiet-gun-front

The answer may be contained in this except from another article (admittedly written by a pro-RKBA supporter.)

Column: 'Gun-free zones' never gun free

By William Perry Pendley
Updated 7/21/2012 6:06 PM


***snip***

It appears that Cinemark Holdings Inc., owner of the theater where these murders took place exercises its rights as an owner of private property in Colorado to bar those who hold concealed carry permits from exercising their rights in its theaters. As a result, law-abiding citizens, including owners of concealed carry permits, who were in the theater that dreadful night were unarmed and thus unable to defend themselves and their fellow movie-goers from the murderous attack visited upon them.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-07-21/Aurora-shooting-Batman-Pendley-mountain-states-concealed-carry/56394526/1

I find it interesting that despite my efforts to find this data on a more liberal site written by an unbiased source, I failed. It might be an understandable failure to not know the local gun laws in Aurora Colorado but considering the resources of the media it is also possible that it was simply ignored as an inconvenient fact.

I did find some more verification unfortunately from Fox News and also written by a pro-RKBA advocate.

Did Colorado shooter single out Cinemark theater because it banned guns?

By John Lott

Published September 10, 2012

FoxNews.com

***snip***

So why did the killer pick the Cinemark theater? You might think that it was the one closest to the killer’s apartment. Or, that it was the one with the largest audience.

Yet, neither explanation is right. Instead, out of all the movie theaters within 20 minutes of his apartment showing the new Batman movie that night, it was the only one where guns were banned. In Colorado, individuals with permits can carry concealed handgun in most malls, stores, movie theaters, and restaurants. But private businesses can determine whether permit holders can carry guns on their private property....emphasis added

Most movie theaters allow permit holders carrying guns. But the Cinemark movie theater was the only one with a sign posted at the theater’s entrance.

A simple web search and some telephone calls reveal how easily one can find out how Cinemark compared to other movie theaters. According to mapquest.com and movies.com, there were seven movie theaters showing "The Dark Knight Rises" on July 20th within 20 minutes of the killer’s apartment at 1690 Paris St, Aurora, Colorado. At 4 miles and an 8-minute car ride, the Cinemark’s Century Theater wasn't the closest. Another theater was only 1.2 miles (3 minutes) away.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/10/did-colorado-shooter-single-out-cinemark-theater/

Most of those who legally carry concealed are careful to follow the law as they are honest citizens with a clean record.

I never carry my legally concealed weapon into an area where it is not permitted in Florida nor to I carry it inside a business that has a sign posted that says "No firearms allowed." I simply avoid going inside such establishments with these signs and take my business to their competitors. If they don't trust me inside their building with my legally concealed firearm then I will respect their view. That's fair. (Today you see very few businesses with signs forbidding carrying a firearm in Florida probably because the state has had "shall issue" concealed carry since 1987 and few problems have been caused by those who have permits.)

I am not saying that if a person had a legally concealed weapon in the Cinemark theater he could have stopped the shooter. There are far too many factors to consider. Much would depend on the location of the individual versus the shooter and some reports state that the shooter used tear gas during his attack. It would have been foolish to engage the shooter in such environment unless the person with the legal weapon was at extremely close range as a miss could have injured or killed an innocent person. Since most concealed weapons carried legally are not all that powerful there is an excellent chance that anyone who would have tried would have ended up as a statistic.