Colorado Theater Shooting Victims and Relatives Demand Guns Be Discussed In Upcoming Presidential De - Polidicks

[quote]DENVER, Oct 1 (Reuters) - Relatives of victims of a Colorado movie theater shooting rampage demanded on Monday that President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney address gun violence in their first presidential debate this week in Denver. In a letter to debate moderator Jim Lehrer, relatives of eight of the 12 people who died at a midnight screening of "The Dark Knight Rises" in July urged him to ask the men who want to lead the country about mass shootings in Colorado at Wednesday night's debate. "To ignore the problem of gun violence where two of the worst shootings in U.S. history took place - Aurora and Columbine - would not only be noticeable by its absence but would slight the memories of our loved ones killed," the letter said. James Holmes, a former neuroscience graduate student, has been charged with murder and attempted murder in the July 20 rampage, one of the worst U.S. outbursts of gun violence in recent years. In addition to those killed, 58 people were wounded. That rampage took place about 15 miles (24 km) from the scene of a 1999 shooting at Columbine High School, where two students shot dead a teacher and 12 students before committing suicide. A spokesman for the Public Broadcasting System's "NewsHour" show that Lehrer hosts said the group's letter was passed along to him and that Lehrer was en route to Denver for the debate at the University of Denver and not available for comment. Talk of reining in America's gun culture is considered politically risky for Obama ahead of the November election. He called for an end to "senseless violence" after the movie theater shootings and another this summer at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin but has been careful not to take a stand on gun control. Romney has said that additional laws would not have stopped the massacre. In a separate initiative, a man wounded in the theater shooting, Stephen Barton, appears in a television ad that will air nationally this week in which he asks the candidates to explain how they would reduce gun violence. "I never thought I'd be a shooting victim until I was bleeding on a floor in Aurora," Barton said in a statement. "I was lucky, but I've seen what happens when dangerous people get their hands on guns. And I think it's fair to ask the men who want to lead the country to get past the platitudes and give us a serious plan to address a serious problem." The ad features Barton sitting in an empty theater explaining how he was shot in the face and neck, adding that 48,000 Americans will be killed by firearms in the next four years unless lawmakers take action. The ad is sponsored by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a coalition of 725 U.S. mayors led by Michael Bloomberg of New York and Thomas Menino of Boston that advocates closing loopholes in gun laws to prevent felons, the mentally ill and "other dangerous people" from obtaining firearms. Bloomberg said in a statement about Barton's ad: "When the candidates walk into that auditorium, I hope they'll be thinking about another theater a few miles away where a dozen people were murdered, and dozens more were injured like Stephen." (Editing By Cynthia Johnston)[/quote] [url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/02/us-usa-shooting-denver-idUSBRE89100D20121002[/url]

Less psychos with them and more people properly educated about them.

Here's how you reduce gun violence: Promote safety courses and education in proper use, enforce existing regulations. Illegal guns will always be a problem, but taking legal guns away from responsible owners will not solve anything. Ninja'd by a mod.

To get your hunting licence you have to take a hunters ed class, which has a fairly comprehensive section over firearms involving the handling, maintaining them, types, and so forth. I think simply adopting that area of the course would do great for a safety course.

[QUOTE=Dysgalt;37877249]To get your hunting licence you have to take a hunters ed class, which has a fairly comprehensive section over firearms involving the handling, maintaining them, types, and so forth. I think simply adopting that area of the course would do great for a safety course.[/QUOTE] My hunter's safety required a section at a range that went over proper handling of firearms. Checking if a round is chambered before accepting the rifle, proper shooting procedure. They had the super realistic airsoft guns so people can learn to disassemble them and how to operate different types. It was really educational.

Sounds like a good idea. My 2 cents: More public awareness and safety courses. Banning guns won't help. We've already tried it with booze, it hasn't helped. And treating it like how we treat sex isn't working either. Refusing to talk about it to the younger generation is only hurting them by letting myths and misinformation be spread.

[QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;37877128]Here's how you reduce gun violence: Promote safety courses and education in proper use, enforce existing regulations. Illegal guns will always be a problem, but taking legal guns away from responsible owners will not solve anything. Ninja'd by a mod.[/QUOTE] Reduce gun related tragedies by mandating everyone's index and middle fingers are fused together rendering the appendage too large to pull the trigger and only law enforcement officials will have 4 fingers It's common sense

Sorry, but the second amendment is one of the most important safeguards against over-powerful governments. Overly broad restrictions on guns damage the amendment, and therefore the restriction on power as well. Perversely, what really needs to be protected is the right to military-level firearms - so that the populace could have a fighting chance against an oppressive government.

maybe people shoot people not because of guns but because of the terrible state of the middle-lower class in america [QUOTE=MrBob1337;37877427]Sorry, but the second amendment is one of the most important safeguards against over-powerful governments. Overly broad restrictions on guns damage the amendment, and therefore the restriction on power as well. Perversely, what really needs to be protected is the right to military-level firearms - so that the populace could have a fighting chance against an oppressive government.[/QUOTE] is this satire or...

OP, what is the source? [editline]1st October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Bobie;37877466]maybe people shoot people not because of guns but because of the terrible state of the middle-lower class in america[/QUOTE] James Holmes was arguably upper middle class, attending a prestigious university where he went BACK to school to get his Master's.

[QUOTE=Ridge;37877479]OP, what is the source?[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/02/us-usa-shooting-denver-idUSBRE89100D20121002[/url]

[QUOTE=Ridge;37877479]OP, what is the source? [editline]1st October 2012[/editline] James Holmes was arguably upper middle class, attending a prestigious university where he went BACK to school to get his Master's.[/QUOTE] i was making more of a reference to gun crime in general, not the isolated incident of the colorado theatre.

[QUOTE=Bobie;37877466] is this satire or...[/QUOTE] Actually, that's the essence of the 2nd amendment; some people really want to deny that, but it's almost universally accepted that nobody will ever actually use it for that purpose.

[QUOTE]advocates closing loopholes in gun laws to prevent felons, the mentally ill and "other dangerous people" from obtaining firearms.[/QUOTE] Good luck with that, but everyone will be "mentally ill or dangerous" unless proven otherwise, creating more restrictions for sane people who follow the laws and have a right to their firearms.

oh shit my bad i'll put up the source

[QUOTE=Bobie;37877466]maybe people shoot people not because of guns but because of the terrible state of the middle-lower class in america is this satire or...[/QUOTE] Not really, part of the reason we have the right to bear arms is so that if the government got out of control we would have the ability to revolt and start anew.

The best solution is to make sure people don't go crazy. Government mandated daily walks in the park.

The problem is when a politician publicly supports the Second Amendment, they also have to admit bills like the NFA, GCA and Hughes Amendment are unconstitutional, which paves a road they really don't want to go down because they're be torn to pieces by the Antis. Refusing to support the Second Amendment is just as bad for them because then they loose a huge majority of their voters. That's why they don't like to talk about guns outside of what ever group they're apart of.

[QUOTE=assassin_Raptor;37877685]Not really, part of the reason we have the right to bear arms is so that if the government got out of control we would have the ability to revolt and start anew.[/QUOTE] ya this is a silly pipe dream and anyone who legitimately believes in a violent revolution taking place in america is [B]insane[/B] [img]http://i.imm.io/GoY8.png[/img]

[QUOTE=Ridge;37877479]OP, what is the source? [editline]1st October 2012[/editline] James Holmes was arguably upper middle class, attending a prestigious university where he went BACK to school to get his Master's.[/QUOTE] schizophrenia

[QUOTE=Kopimi;37877772]ya this is a silly pipe dream and anyone who legitimately believes in a violent revolution taking place in america is insane[/QUOTE] It's like saying, "We need to take down the oppressive government of Norway!" - except it is even more impossible and just as ludicrous.

[QUOTE=Bobie;37877525]i was making more of a reference to gun crime in general, not the isolated incident of the colorado theatre.[/QUOTE] I agree with what you're saying. It's a point I try to drive any time a thread goes into "gun control mode" in that, guns aren't the problem and getting rid of guns is only a bandage on a larger social problem

But what if one of the victims had a gun? Banning guns is stupid. Proper knowledge and checking the people getting guns is not.

[QUOTE=Araknid;37878610][B]But what if one of the victims had a gun?[/B] Banning guns is stupid. Proper knowledge and checking the people getting guns is not.[/QUOTE] someone else would have gotten shot and police would have probably killed the civilian that had a gun

I can't speak from experience but a theater full of tear gas while shots are being fired into the crowd doesn't really leave any clean, open shots to the shooter.

There definitely needs to be a discussion about it. I don't know where I sit on it though.

an idiot who support the bans of guns is the first idiot to get shot by a gun. Banning guns just causes more crime to appear and no self-defense against crime.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;37877772]ya this is a silly pipe dream and anyone who legitimately believes in a violent revolution taking place in america is insane[/QUOTE] Yes because it's completely impossible that circumstances will ever change at any point in time and anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot.

[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;37879030]Yes because it's completely impossible that circumstances will ever change at any point in time and anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot.[/QUOTE] because average CCW holders are trained for high stress operations involving tear gas and threats wearing body armor

I'm not sure what anyone thinks the President can do about civilian gun violence, the President isn't the one shooting people. The President does not write nor pass laws. The President is the Commander in Chief of the military, so he can order them to stop shooting people. That's a start I guess, but it's probably not what they had in mind.