.
Feedback

Poll: Time to Tighten Gun Control Laws?

Theater suspect's easy access to arsenal revives debate about weapons in wake of Colorado shooting.

Families continued to grieve over the weekend for the 12 lost and dozens injured after a gunman opened fire in an Aurora, Colo., theater early Friday morning.

After looking at the large arsenal James Holmes collected to carry out the crime, the conversation on TV talk shows was about gun control, crime prevention and the 2nd Amendment.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg criticized President Barack Obama for a first term without any real effort regarding gun control. 

"The president has spent the last three years trying to avoid the issue, or if he's facing it, I don't know of anybody who has seen him face it," Bloomberg, a supporter of increased restrictions on weapons access, said Sunday on CBS's "Face the Nation."

Bloomberg also noted presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney's shifting stance on gun laws as the New York mayor called for this to be a more prominent topic of discussion in the 2012 race.

"This really is an enormous problem for the country, and it's up to these two presidential candidates," Bloomberg said. "They want to lead this country, and they've said things before that they're in favor of banning things like assault weapons. Where are they now and why don't they stand up? And if they want our votes, they better."

According to The Huffington Post, the alleged Colorado shooter, James Holmes, acquired his arsenal of weapons, ammunition and body armor over a several month period from the internet and brick-and-mortar stores alike. His purchases did not raise any red flags. 

Proponents of gun rights, however, argue that a vast majority of gun owners are law-abiding citizens and that criminals who commit these kinds of massacres aren't obeying laws already in place so wouldn't obey stricter ones either. 

Dudley Brown, executive director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, commented on Holmes' 6,000 rounds of ammunition for an assault rifle.

"If I only had 6,000 rounds for my AR-15s, I'd literally feel naked," Brown said, according to The Huffington Post. Holmes' arsenal included "two handguns, a shotgun and a rifle. That's the average male in Colorado."

The Associated Press spoke with Colorado State Rep. Mike Waller, a Republican who says the state shouldn't limit the purchase of ammunition. But he saw a worthy debate over the protective gear worn by Holmes during the shootings.

"Is that what the right to bear arms means, that you can purchase tactical gear to stop law enforcement from preventing you from perpetrating a crime?" Waller said to the AP. "In the days and weeks to come, this is going to be a significant conversation."

So, how does this crime shift the debate on gun control? Take the poll and tell us more in the comments section below.

Bwood July 29, 2012 at 08:31 pm
Whatever, Todd, I won't mention it again. May you someday realize that your pride is your biggest liability.
Dan Schmitt July 29, 2012 at 08:39 pm
David,
This will be my final contribution to the discussion. M.Legison, in his 4:12 pm writing said pretty much what I planned to say, but he said it more succinctly than I would have. Thanks, M.Legison, you saved me time. David, I inferred in my first contribution that's it's difficult to have a reasonable discussion on the issue of guns/gun control because people tend to use their emotions rather than their brains. Well, buddy, you're "case in point #1". Let me cite something you recently wrote: "You keep asking for proof here is a video of Paneda in front of congress saying they take orders from the UN not Congress. The other is a video of Eric Holder talking about brainwashing kids both of these jack asses were appointed by Obamnation the commander and scum of this country will do everything in his power to destroy it you can't argue facts and here they are so go back into your hole you loose." Irritational words like "both of these jack asses", "Obamnation", "the commander and scum of this country" pretty much ends it for me. Ciao
Mark Paxson July 29, 2012 at 09:04 pm
Actually, Todd, I judge your ignorance and stupidity more by your utter inability to deal with people who have different views with anything other than telling them they are stupid, ignorant and lying. Somewhere along the way, you gotta realize that gets the discussion nowhere, gets you nowhere (except in the category to which you are trying to place your opposition).
I grow frustrated with some people on the right who throw out allegations and then run when asked for a factual discussion. I grow even more frustrated when somebody on my side of the discussion is even worse.
Mark Paxson July 29, 2012 at 09:08 pm
M. Legison ... your incredibly reasoned response to those videos and to David give me new hope.
M.Legison July 29, 2012 at 10:14 pm
This is a highly unproductive discussion, and I don't think it's fair to Cody. @Mark--I don't often respond because there's no point. You will simply argue. It's your nature. You're a lawyer. I understand. Please simply consider my allegations as opinion. That's easier.
I don't feel that I'm making any positive contributions to the Patch, and it's time for a break. Best to you all. I know you all mean well.
Mark Paxson July 29, 2012 at 10:45 pm
M. -- I think it's been pretty clear from the moment I started participating in these discussions how frustrated I was at the inability to have rational, respectful conversations about important issues. I share your frustrations. I want nothing more than to be able to have a more reasonable discussion. In reality, I hate to argue. It's not who I am, regardless of what you may think is the nature of a lawyer. :) (here's a hint for you: if I had my druthers I would be something far removed from being a lawyer.) Best to you as well. Hopefully, people like you and I could one day figure out that we, regardless of our different views, have the best interests of our country at heart and, from that basis, beginning with a position of respect for each other, actually talk about issues instead of attack and criticize and call names. If you and I can't, there's not much hope for a rational dialogue in this country.
Think Free July 29, 2012 at 11:58 pm
Well, I think you very smart, great writers should stop attacking others for their ability or inability to write. Whatever skills a person has in writing should not be a part of the conversation and is used most of the time when someone has nothing constructive to say. Yes I do have a personal vendetta against M Legison because of his personal attacks and his prejudice towards others. So you can call me ignorant or whatever all day long, just to let you know, I used to cower and delete my words when people started calling me names on this site and it is usually the same two people but now it is three. A suggestion would be try being human.
Think Free July 29, 2012 at 11:59 pm
We are coming to take your guns away!!!!!!
Take your meds!
Mark Paxson July 30, 2012 at 12:16 am
Follow your own advice.
Adam July 30, 2012 at 01:53 pm
Guns don't kill people- People kill people. Guns just make it WAY eaiser to kill someone.
Felicia Mello July 30, 2012 at 04:02 pm
A comment was deleted here because it used profanity to criticize another reader. I know folks have strong opinions on this issue, but please avoid profanity and personal attacks on others. Thanks.
M.Legison July 30, 2012 at 11:35 pm
I know I'm supposed to be on break, but I ran across an article that I felt was so salient to our recent heated discussions that I couldn't resist sharing it, even if it's not directly related to this thread. I hope Mark, Bwood, Dan, and a few others will take the time to read it. I think you'll agree with most of its contents, or at least I hope so.
It is from the AEI, American Enterprise Institute, a center right think tank which is the mirror of the center left Brookings Institute. Both are highly regarded and neither is extreme by any fair measure. The title of the article is "Why Capitalism Has An Image Problem." I believe it will explain in part why we've become so polarized, and what we on both the right and left need to do to restore a more equitable workplace. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did. http://www.aei.org/article/economics/why-capitalism-has-an-image-problem/
Franklin July 31, 2012 at 12:06 am
I added up the total percentages according to Patch. They only add up to 97%. What happened to the other 3%?
Bwood July 31, 2012 at 12:41 am
And this has what to do with gun control ……?
M.Legison July 31, 2012 at 01:05 am
As I stated in the comment, nothing, but it has a lot to do with the spirit of the thread, and I have no capability of starting a new one. Sorry if the thread placement is more important than the content to you.
Mark Paxson July 31, 2012 at 02:12 am
M. ... I appreciate your posting this. It's late and I don't have the time to read it and think about it and then post something intelligent, so I won't just yet. Later. Thanks for posting it.
Merlie Trinidad July 31, 2012 at 04:27 pm
I think AdelitaZMurreitta has a well thought out comment and point.
Mark Paxson July 31, 2012 at 11:30 pm
It's somewhat difficult for me to get past the opening paragraph of this piece. "He has been a successful capitalist, and capitalism is the best thing that has ever happened to the material condition of the human race." The simple reality is that capitalism, as it is practiced in America these days, is no longer about improving the material condition of the human race. Instead, it is about improving the lot of the haves while not caring a wit about those who have less. This is somewhat of a humorous statement: "If you've gotten rich, it is because you made someone else poorer." It is stated as a criticism of the current mind set that attacks capitalism. The funny thing is that Mitt Romney much of his fortune doing exactly that ... making other people poorer, by cutting their benefits, laying them off, and shuttering their factories. Yes, that's a generalization. Some companies Bain invested in still exist and thrive, but the fundamental reality is that Bain's reason for its existence was to create profits for its investors, not to enhance the material condition of the human race. I do agree with the piece's attack on the non-existence of stewardship in the capitalist class and think there is a more fundamental problem, which is discussed here ... http://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/31/4676139/lack-of-penalties-fosters-crumbling.html ... there is no more accountability for people who no longer care about being stewards. There's much more to be said, but I'm at my character limit.
M.Legison July 31, 2012 at 11:43 pm
I think we'll always disagree as to the value of capitalism, but I appreciate your time and willingness to have a look, Mark.
Mark Paxson August 1, 2012 at 10:46 am
M. ... I don't think we'd disagree as much as you think.
Dan Schmitt August 1, 2012 at 11:38 am
M.Legison and Mark,
Now that the topic has gravitated to economics, I'm back in. The article is insightful, but I need more time to properly digest the content. Unlike getting information from TV or radio, reading provides people with the time and opportunity to ponder, introspect, and even debate content with oneself. Just a couple thoughts on "capitalism". I'm an unabashed liberal who believes in capitalism. No, these two are not incompatable! I am, however, very much against "unfettered capitalism". The United States and much of the world is still reeling from the effects of capitalism gone wild in our recent history. Americans tend to be mythical people on most issues, and capitalism is no exception. Hearken back to earlier days in our history. Those individual free spirits who "headed West young man" to gain land and wealth were aided by a government that carved out the Cumberland Gap for them. Early American business owners, unable to compete against cheaper products coming in from England, cried for and were assisted by import taxes levied by state and federal government.
M.Legison August 1, 2012 at 12:09 pm
Dan, I believe anyone who supports fully unfettered capitalism is misdirected. After all, the prime purpose of the Constitution is to act to define and restrain the power of government and lay out rights of the citizens in a capitalist nation. By extension capitalism must have boundaries too. Both can be viewed as a continuum, and many of us feel that the government has moved from a benevolent keeper of order and benefactor to capitalism to a body of restraint first. The article author poses that encouraging capitalism is more productive than restraining it.
The government helped with infrastructure such as your Cumberland Gap example and with today's roads not because they had a great idea, but because they developed more trade, growth, and wealth for both individuals and the government. Roads would not have been built had the automobile not been invented first. The Gap would not have been created without the vision of increased prosperity, employment, and trade from the settlers. The government should act to empower capitalism, not stifle it, all within the bounds of mutual stewardship. I think that should be our mutual goal.
Dan Schmitt August 1, 2012 at 05:20 pm
M.Legison,
I'm still digesting the article. I think, in theory, capitalism is the best economic system around. The problem is, capitalism like all economic systems and like all governmental systems are created by human beings. Human beings, although usually well-intended are fallible! Reminds me of a history professor who frequented a bar I tended back in the 70's. In a discussion on economics with other bar patrons, the good professor said, "Under capitalism, man exploits man. Communism is just vice versa!" When dealing with economics, I believe many people forget or simply don't know history. People make connections with the founding fathers and the Constitution, and those connections don't necessarily fit. Much of it is created to fit one's mindset. The fact is we live in a much more complex society than did the founding fathers, and that complexity must be taken into account when dealing with economic issues. In 1790, there were fewer than 5 million people in the United States. Now we have over 300 million. None of the following was an issue to consider back in 1790: industrialization (just beginning), pollution, working conditions (except for slaves), obesity, the automobile, international corporations, derivities, and on and on and on. There is nothing said in the Constitution about the rights of citizens in a CAPITALIST nation. You're making that inference. Where specifically does the Constitution refer to capitalism? More to come.
M.Legison August 1, 2012 at 08:17 pm
Dan I think you're equivocating and should focus on the intent of the Constitution, especially if you are any kind of a Constitutionalist and I know some are not. I did not mean to make an inference about the U.S. being specifically a capitalist nation, although that was certainly the intent when we freed ourselves from an oppressive monarchy. I was merely comparing government rule and domain vs. private rights and the Constitution addressed both.
Dan Schmitt August 1, 2012 at 08:47 pm
M.Legison,
No deception on my part. From my understanding, the Constitution was rather "neutral" on economic issues. Freeing ourselves from the British was not for purely economic reasons, taxation without representation excepted. Take a look at the Preamble, the three Articles, and the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. Where specificially does it address economic issues? Let's focus on the Preamble: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Now, I can understand how some people might interpret "promote the general Welfare" as support for a free market system. I can also understand how some people might interpret the phrase as support for universal, single-payer (government) health care. We all must be careful when putting our own spin on what we believe the founding fathers intended.
Mark Paxson August 2, 2012 at 02:31 am
I think it's interesting that you equate freeing ourselves from an oppressive monarchy with an intent to develop as a capitalist nation. I think most people looking at the reasons for the Revolutionary War might look at it a little differently. Freedom from oppression, freedom from a government in which the colonists had no representation, freedom to practice the religion of their choice, freedom in a lot of other areas. I don't recall ever hearing that we sought our independence so we could be a capitalist nation. I'd suggest that the Commerce Clause also supports the idea that the Founding Fathers recognized the need to regulate commerce and not allow for an unfettered economic system. And "promote the General Welfare" has absolutely nothing to do with a capitalist concept.
M.Legison August 2, 2012 at 04:13 am
Mark, the comment to which you are responding was poorly worded. What I intended to point out was that the structure of our Constitution help pave the path for the ultimate development of capitalism and free markets. I don't understand the "General Welfare" comment. I believe that came from someone else. Thanks for your response.
Dan Schmitt August 2, 2012 at 11:19 am
Mark and M.Legison,
I'm a bit confused here. I posted comments at 4:47 pm on Wednesday, August 1, 2012 in which I mentioned "promote the general Welfare" from the Preamble. My posting is shown on Patch after your last two postings, but was actually written prior to yours! Did you get my posting which began "No deception on my part."
Mark Paxson August 2, 2012 at 01:31 pm
It was my fault. I replied to an earlier post by M., and included a comment related to yours. I was trying to take a short cut.
Katheryn September 30, 2012 at 06:38 pm
The following is an article in the Temecula Patch September 2012, and you would be wise to read the article and watch the videos. I think gun laws are well regulated, the State needs to regulate mining which can cause cancer.
http://temecula.patch.com/articles/citizen-reader-shares-mining-sounds A good friend sent this email and said the following, "Do you think this is what happens when a mining operator/Developer seems to be in control of your elected politicians and the appointed officials these same politicians put in positions of authority. Do you think government employees have to follow the instructions of these same politicians in order to keep their government jobs? Do you wonder if someone would be fired if they didn't do what the politicians wanted them to do?" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5m_HypxyudI&feature=relmfu Have you seen the MaryAnn Edwards video featuring the Aberhill Ranch Boys and Girls Club with Castle & Cookes aggregate mining operation in the background it's across the street. Paul Jacobs may be onto something? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhckrqXX-L4 Another video of the Alberhill Ranch Boys and Girls Club which puts things in prospective: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e12kTmWvn7U&feature=related

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Rosemont Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Cost is $99.00 from WalMart
Sandor June 18, 2013 at 09:11 pm
The three people - look like they are under 20 years old and are either light skinned black - orRead More Hispanic - travel together often around Percival, Firelight and Caldera. They have also stolen a flip-phone - then asked for $20.00 when they returned it.
Guido Bisogno May 26, 2013 at 08:35 pm
The Marks of this world are too blind to facts to bother arguing with. He thinks 4 generation ofRead More welfare and more people on food stamps then ever before in history is progress! What's the point acknowledging such absurd nonsense? Don't bother Roberto, complete waste of effort.
Marnix A. van Ammers May 27, 2013 at 07:21 am
Nobody likes debt or an economy that is limping along. Obama has done an admirable job consideringRead More what he's had to put up with. The deficit has been reduced considerably. Stock market is as high as ever. Unemployment is still a big problem. Thank God we still have food stamps to help those people who have lost their jobs. Our bridges are falling apart. How about we invest in fixing our crumbling infrastructure, get those people back to work, get them spending, stimulate this economy. Oh, that's right, if Obama is for it, the opposition will automatically be against it (even if it's their idea!) .
Guido Bisogno May 27, 2013 at 07:03 pm
Here we go - perfect example of a blind koolaid drinker. Listen to this: "The deficit has beenRead More reduced considerably" REALLY, then why has it doubled in the last few years? What planet are you from? "Thank God we still have food stamps to help those people who have lost their jobs." then "Obama has done an admirable job"....HELLOOOOOO! You can't have it both ways. My god we are lost if this is the mentality that is voting now - totally lost. I wish these types were routed out of the gene pool when things were tough and they would simply perish from stupidity. Now days thing are so easy they thrive and reproduce. Watch in 10 years how GREAT things are, just watch.
Jolinda April 10, 2013 at 02:00 pm
Thanks for a wonderful article Chris! Truly, Cyprus is one of the most magical and beautiful placesRead More on this earth and I hope the current financial challenges are short lived! Again, thanks for a very well written article!
Karen Schmidt May 20, 2013 at 01:42 pm
I'm in need of only 3 more families. It's simple and short; only 3 weeks this summer in RosemontRead More area to host a Spanish student. Won't you join us on this exciting opportunity! We go on fun outings over that 3 week period. Contact: Karen Schmidt, 916-521-3679 June 28 - July 23