Assault <i>weapons</i>, a term Donna is using correctly, have been defined in U.S. law as semi-automatic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_As…) and are currently available at Bass Pro Shop. They're advertised, among other uses, as handy for varmint hunting.

*Be interesting to know how many firearm homicides are committed by people that were just allowed to walk in off the street go through the NICS check pick up a few weapons buy a few thousand rounds and start shooting.*

Amen. I agree that classes and licensing for all gun owners would make sense.

As for your other comments on education... I know you're not in Mississippi, but the fact that right now half the state wants "abstinence-only" education and the other half is opting for "abstinence-plus" speaks to how little sex education is really happening. If you think people like shooting guns, you might at least agree that people also like having sex, and that the world would be a better place if they were trained properly in both endeavors.

No doubt they're cowards for those reasons and more -- like the fact that they're resorting to murder via high-capacity weaponry to deal with whatever crazy talk is going on inside their head. Regardless of the venue.

That said, most places where people congregate are filled with "unarmed victims." Aside from maybe tea-party meetings, VFW halls and Bubba's family reunion, I'm not sure where exactly all of these "armed victims" are going to congregate. It's a fairly nonsensical argument -- when someone opens up in any crowded public space with the ability to put a round-per-second into the air, you're going to wound and kill people. Maybe fewer, if people with the proper training respond correctly, but you've still got surprise on your side.

Note the lens through which you see the problem. The problem isn't access to weaponry, it's the lack of an armed populace? The often challenged and arguably debunked theory of "More Guns, Less Crime" isn't the only way to see it.

*My point is there are already laws to stop most of these people if utilized and if you don't think we have enough gun laws what do you suggest to stop criminals and the insane from killing people? And with more gun laws how do you get criminals to obey the law?*

There *have been* laws to stop the purchases made in preparation for Aurora; a significant one has expired. I think a renewal of the ban on weapons of war might be the logical next step, along with more controls and regulations on high-capacity magazines and related modifications.

There's a common-sense argument that says this deranged person -- who otherwise had no criminal records or apparent ties to the underworld -- might have *at least* gone into this situation with fewer bullets to spray if he'd been limited to lower-capacity rifles and/or handguns, and if his weapon of choice wasn't on the shelves at Bass Pro Shop.

In fact, I'm surprised that handgun proponents don't welcome a renewal of the assault weapons ban, as it puts them on more equal footing in that public firefight they seem to feel is so likely to go their way.

And, finally, my stance is more nuanced than just re-instating the assault weapons ban. I believe we need rethink both some of our laws governing guns in this country, and the "drug war" and our addiction to incarcerating people for non-violent offenses.

I think that the drug war puts entire too many people into a system that then (a.) gives them criminal records, making it harder to get legitimate work and (b.) that introduces them to harsher criminal elements and syndicates that then perpetuate violence and more serious crime. The result -- those criminals you're worried about getting access to guns on the black market.

There's a holistic solution in there somewhere, but it'll require us to be honest about the problems and we'll need to change some screwed-up priorities to reach that solution.

*Who the hell said anything about letting anyone and everyone watch a movie with a pistol in their lap?*

My point is that if the business didn't prohibit firearms on their private property then why wouldn't Colorado's open carry policies kick in?

But I guess you're saying you're being *descriptive* not *prescriptive* and you're not actually suggesting any particular change? OK...

In that case, I think it would take a little more research to conclude that "gun-free" zones are somehow causal in determining where mass killers are going to perpetrate their crimes.

Aside from the fact that many of the major shootings of the past few years have happened not just at schools, but also in malls, workplaces, outdoors, on an Army base, around town in the D.C. area, etc., you might find that there are possible reasons for a location being selected for a mass shooting beyond a location being a "gun-free" zone.

For instance, it's possible some of the places were chosen simply because they were PUBLIC places where the shooter assumed a large number of people and/or a dramatic showdown, without regard to whether the location was technically "gun-free."

Likewise, at least some of the places where gunman have decided to shoot up have been locations of significance to the shooter, where at least some of the people shot were specific targets, probably again without regard to whether or not the location was a "gun-free" zone.

Thirdly, while I suppose some mass shooters are at least able to think tactically, my guess is that it's unwise to also prescribe logical motives to mass-murdering shooters.

With the Aurora shooter, who went in with tear gas and head-to-toe kevlar, it seems that even if he specifically selected the theater for its gun-free policy, he was still prepared as completely as possible for the eventuality that someone would shoot back.

So I guess my question is... what's the point? Even if we assume there's some correlation between "gun-free zones" and mass shootings -- causal or not -- then what steps should be taken?

Apparently so. Who knew?

Over the course of Romney's three-country "foreign policy" tour -- England, Israel and Poland -- it seemed to me that the only really impressive part of the trip was his speech in Poland, where I thought he landed some punches by pointing out how a past Iron Curtain nation is kicking butt on the free market.

Of course, it was a bit too good to be true -- while Poland does sound like it's clicking in a few cylinders with entrepreneurship compared to other smaller E.U. nations, it's curious to see how many "socialized" programs Poland has, particularly as a former communist country that emerged from Soviet rule via the strength of its labor party (Solidarity, which Reagan praised profusely) and strong labor laws with a social safety net.

It actually makes Poland sound a bit more like Massachusetts. :)

Scrappy... and the appropriate place for this to happen is when the voter is *registered*, not when they're actually voting. If you're serious about addressing nearly all voter fraud issues, you'd focus on voter registration and absentee voter issues. And I'm all for that. I just think once you've established your ID and residence, you should be able to vote without first getting approval from a poll worker like you're an 18-year-old buying a pack of smokes.

I think all sports writers who post results early are Communists.

My bad... I didn't know about the posting. Colorado law does allow private property owners to determine whether or not you can carry on their property.

Still, that's a can of worms -- you're going to force private property owners to allow people to carry guns on the premises? If people don't have a conceal-carry permit, are you supposed to allow them to sit in the seat with their pistol in their lap?

Scrappy, aren't you the guy who said two threads back that "Free contraception will not work any better than free education has." (Hint: yes, that was you.)

That was on a sex education thread. You say above "As with most health issues, education is the key to prevention." Interesting, but if that's true for gun safety, it seems it might also be true for preventing unwanted pregnancies.