Gun sales spike in Colorado after shooting, just like they did in Arizona

L

led.boots

Guest
People get nervous about possible knee-jerk gun/ammunition bans after these horrible crimes, so they go buy some.
 

thefadedone

Needs a life
Joined
Jun 2, 2012
Reaction score
4,828
I worked at a big name retail store on 9/11. The store was ghost town except for the gun/hunting department. They broke sales records that day.
 
OP
OP
U

uno

Guest
I worked at a big name retail store on 9/11. The store was ghost town except for the gun/hunting department. They broke sales records that day.
so, a gun is good protection against a jumbo jet? noted. note to self: get more guns to shoot down aircraft.
 
M

mlp

Guest
I worked at a big name retail store on 9/11. The store was ghost town except for the gun/hunting department. They broke sales records that day.

Yeah, I think the gun buying is a fear reaction, not so much an "ZOMG, they're going to confiscate all our guns now reaction", even if people try to give a semi rational explanation for why they're doing it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thefadedone

Forster

3-7-77
Joined
Jun 4, 2012
Reaction score
669
Location
Montana
There is also the greed factor, though to a lesser extent. So called assault weapons skyrocketed in price when the ban went into place.

Full auto weapons are still available (provided one passes the licensing requirements) but being the government cut off the supply of new ones to civilians it's become a "rich mans" sport.

If more guns are banned/restricted those will go that way too. Eventually only the elite will be able to afford to exercise their 2nd amendment rights.
 
OP
OP
U

uno

Guest
There is also the greed factor, though to a lesser extent. So called assault weapons skyrocketed in price when the ban went into place.

Full auto weapons are still available (provided one passes the licensing requirements) but being the government cut off the supply of new ones to civilians it's become a "rich mans" sport.

If more guns are banned/restricted those will go that way too. Eventually only the elite will be able to afford to exercise their 2nd amendment rights.

not to mention if there are more bans, guns will be hoarded and hidden. i would do that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thefadedone
M

mlp

Guest
Yeah, I'm still amused at how gun rights advocates (and the Supreme Court in 2008) choose to completely disregard the entire preface to the second amendment, as though it's not even there.
 

Ansciess

Forum Legend
Joined
Jun 25, 2012
Reaction score
139
There is also the greed factor, though to a lesser extent. So called assault weapons skyrocketed in price when the ban went into place.

Full auto weapons are still available (provided one passes the licensing requirements) but being the government cut off the supply of new ones to civilians it's become a "rich mans" sport.

If more guns are banned/restricted those will go that way too. Eventually only the elite will be able to afford to exercise their 2nd amendment rights.

Do you define being able to exercise 2nd amendment rights as being allowed to own and use EVERY type of gun?
 

beancounter

The Fire That Burns Within
Joined
Jun 3, 2012
Reaction score
2,688
Location
In the Church of the Poisoned Mind
Every type of firearm, yes.

Do you interpret the 2nd amendment to mean any type of weapon, not just firearms? How about weapon grade plutonium?

Plutonium may be defined as a weapon of mass destruction, but IMO so is a firearm that can kill or injure 70 peole in a couple of minutes.

From another perspective, if all this guy had access to was a knife, probably 10 people would be alive today, and 58 would have no injuries.
 

Forster

3-7-77
Joined
Jun 4, 2012
Reaction score
669
Location
Montana
Do you interpret the 2nd amendment to mean any type of weapon, not just firearms? How about weapon grade plutonium?

Plutonium may be defined as a weapon of mass destruction, but IMO so is a firearm that can kill or injure 70 peole in a couple of minutes.

From another perspective, if all this guy had access to was a knife, probably 10 people would be alive today, and 58 would have no injuries.

Personal arms only, nor am I opposed to a more thorough background check/licensing prior purchasing such weapons as well as putting restrictions on transfer of said weapons to other people.

As far as weapons of mass destruction I make a distinction between "arms" that can be used discriminatory vs non-discriminatory.

And if this guy didn't have a firearm, maybe he would have constructed bombs and everyone would have perished. I don't know if there is a realistic way to stopping an individual hell bent on causing mayhem and death.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thefadedone
OP
OP
U

uno

Guest
Personal arms only, nor am I opposed to a more thorough background check/licensing prior purchasing such weapons as well as putting restrictions on transfer of said weapons to other people.

As far as weapons of mass destruction I make a distinction between "arms" that can be used discriminatory vs non-discriminatory.

And if this guy didn't have a firearm, maybe he would have constructed bombs and everyone would have perished. I don't know if there is a realistic way to stopping an individual hell bent on causing mayhem and death.

agreed. if someone is hell bent on creating mayhem, one can become very creative.
 

beancounter

The Fire That Burns Within
Joined
Jun 3, 2012
Reaction score
2,688
Location
In the Church of the Poisoned Mind
There is also the greed factor, though to a lesser extent. So called assault weapons skyrocketed in price when the ban went into place.

Full auto weapons are still available (provided one passes the licensing requirements) but being the government cut off the supply of new ones to civilians it's become a "rich mans" sport.

If more guns are banned/restricted those will go that way too. Eventually only the elite will be able to afford to exercise their 2nd amendment rights.

What's strange is that this guy did have the ability to make bombs (his appartment was booby trapped with them), so if he wanted to create that type of mayhem he could have. I think he wanted to live...and a bomb always has the chance of exploding in your face.
 
OP
OP
U

uno

Guest
What's strange is that this guy did have the ability to make bombs (his appartment was booby trapped with them), so if he wanted to create that type of mayhem he could have. I think he wanted to live...and a bomb always has the chance of exploding in your face.
or he wanted to see what it's like to actually take a life and watch it expire.
 
L

led.boots

Guest
Yeah, I'm still amused at how gun rights advocates (and the Supreme Court in 2008) choose to completely disregard the entire preface to the second amendment, as though it's not even there.
It isn't a preface, it is part of the one-sentence amendment.
 
M

mlp

Guest
I realize that. :) It's a preface to the rest of the sentence.

The point I was making is that the gun rights side ignores it, and it provides context to the part that they focus on.
 

Forster

3-7-77
Joined
Jun 4, 2012
Reaction score
669
Location
Montana
I realize that. :) It's a preface to the rest of the sentence.

The point I was making is that the gun rights side ignores it, and it provides context to the part that they focus on.

They don't ignore it and they understand the context in which it was written. :)
 

Ansciess

Forum Legend
Joined
Jun 25, 2012
Reaction score
139
And if this guy didn't have a firearm, maybe he would have constructed bombs and everyone would have perished. I don't know if there is a realistic way to stopping an individual hell bent on causing mayhem and death.

I think the key word is "maybe." Maybe not. It's pure speculation. Bombs are not something people in the US use often to cause destruction. But we DO know that, given all his options, the one he found most appealing was the gun.

Are there places where increased gun control happened and then suddenly there was a flurry of people trying to making bombs to compensate? I don't think so.