home

Colorado's Largest Shooting Range to Open Jan. 23

Cheyenne Mountain Shooting Complex, Colorado's largest shooting range ever will open Jan. 23 in El Paso County (near Colorado Springs.)

County support services director Imad Karaki says:

"This is the largest shooting complex in the state of Colorado," Karaki said. "The location here is incredible. It's about safety and fun. We also want serious hunters to come out here."
The range will rent firearms and sell ammunition. [More....]

There are seven independent shooting ranges, with six always open to the public. The seventh will be used by law enforcement agencies but will be open to the public when not reserved. There are 110 covered firing points and an additional 10 that won't be covered.

More details here. Funding assistance came from the Colorado Parks and Wildlife agency and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Hunter Education and Wildlife Restoration Programs.

On the Parks and Wildlife grants program:

Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s Shooting Range Development Grant Program provides matching grants to towns, counties, sportsmen and outdoor recreation organizations, shooting clubs, economic development agencies and others for projects to establish, improve or expand shooting ranges and shooting areas, including archery, across the state.

The Shooting Range Development Grant Program (SRDG) allocates up to $500,000 annually in matching funds through a competitive grant process. To date, the SRDG Program has awarded funding to more than a dozen projects on the Eastern Plains, along the Front Range and on the Western Slope.

< Another Aurora Shooting | Sunday Night TV and Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    meanwhile (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by desmoinesdem on Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 08:34:05 PM EST
    The NYT Sunday magazine had a good feature on restorative justice in a murder case in Florida. Although guns weren't the main point of the article, I was struck by this passage:

    Conor [McBride] went back in the house, locked the door, went to his father's closet, pulled his shotgun down from a shelf, unlocked it, went to another room where the ammunition was kept and loaded the gun. He sat down in the living room, put the gun under his chin and his finger on the trigger.

    "I just felt so frustrated, helpless and angry," Conor says. "I was just so sick and tired of fighting. I wanted us to work out just because, I mean, I loved the girl. I still do. I was so torn -- this was the girl that just said she wants me to die. I'm sick of the fighting. I just want to die, and yet I love her, and if I kill myself she might do something to herself."

    All these thoughts were running through his head when Ann [Grosmaire] started banging on the door. Conor stood up, placed the weapon on a table and let her in. They went into his bedroom, and a few minutes later Conor went to get her something to drink. When he returned, he found her lying on the couch, breathing in a way that seemed to indicate distress. Her mysterious behavior made him so angry that he started screaming: "Let me help you! Tell me what's wrong!" Conor says that he would frequently fall into this "wrathful anger," and on this day "there was so much anger, and I kept snapping." Ann started sobbing, saying that Conor didn't care and that she wanted to die. "At this point, I just lost it," Conor says. He left the room and got the gun. Ann started to follow him, but she may have stumbled or tripped, because when Conor returned with the gun, she was on her knees halfway between the couch and the door. Conor was frustrated, exhausted and angry and "not thinking straight at all."

    He pointed the gun at her, thinking, he says, that he could "scare her" so that "maybe she would snap out of it."

    "Is this what you want?" he yelled. "Do you want to die?"

    "No, don't!" Ann held out her hand. Conor fired. [...]

    When it was Michael McBride's turn to speak, sorrow overtook him and he told the group that if he had ever thought his shotgun would have harmed another person, he never would have kept it. Kate Grosmaire didn't bring it up at the conference, but she says she has thought a lot about that gun. "If that gun had not been in the house, our daughter would be alive," she told me.

    Too many murders and suicides happen because an adolescent has easy access to a gun at an emotionally vulnerable moment.

    He had been abusing her during their entire (none / 0) (#6)
    by Angel on Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 11:48:11 PM EST
    relationship.  This was cold-blooded murder with a gun that he should never have been able to access.

    Parent
    they had been fighting for (none / 0) (#14)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 09:26:07 AM EST
    two or three days.
     I read the article and was also struck by the same passage.  I thought what if in that particular home there were no gun, that girl would be alive.
    But then I thought, so how does that work.  Does that mean that no gun should exist in any home where there are teenagers?  What about hunters or people who keep them for defending their home from intruders.  The gun wasn't loaded.  The kid had to go to some trouble and his reason for loading the gun according to him was to kill himself.
    Seems to me there was a lot of drama and domestic violence involved in this relationship and both teens had some responsibility in ramping it up. How did all four parents miss it?
     Seems to me the father of the young man should have been more concerned about teaching his son about how real men control their tempers and treat women with respect and kindness.
    Seems to me the young women's parents should have taught her that drama in a relationship didn't equal love and no good would come of it.

    I don't think the gun was the #1 problem unless you are saying no guns in any homes. If you are saying that, forget it.  It's not going to happen and it's not a position that is going to move us towards any sort of solution.  

    Parent

    They had fought through the entire relationship, (none / 0) (#37)
    by Angel on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 11:23:26 AM EST
    apparently.  There was something in the Florida newspapers about how she had made a list of things he needed to do to be better to her, and one of the items on the list was to quit hitting her, among other horrible things.  So it was a volatile relationship for a long time.  Why the parents didn't do something about it astounds me.  Her parents said they loved him and were excited about him being the father of their grandchildren!  Lots of failures here, but the biggest failure, IMO, is that the gun was available to someone who had impulse control and anger issues, among other problems.  We see what happened.  

    Parent
    A gun grabber indeed. (none / 0) (#40)
    by redwolf on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 11:42:37 AM EST
    Japan has a much higher suicide rate than American with virtually no access to guns.  The only reason you and your friends are agitating about guns is to disarm the public.  Once the public is disarmed then the real killing gets started.  We saw an example of that in waco where the US government murdered 76 people.  Try to take our guns. We won't give them up with out a fight.

    Parent
    Here we go (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 11:49:00 AM EST
    No one's talking about taking your guns.

    Nothing sets these guys off like the thought of "prying the gun from my cold, dead fingers", etc.

    Yawn.

    BTW - The U.S. government didn't murder those people in Waco.

    Parent

    Correction: (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 11:50:41 AM EST
    We saw an example of that in waco where the US government murdered 76 people.

    You mean, where the few adults in charge of the complex brutally murdered their own children and other innocents with their illegally stockpiled weapons before the government could arrest them.

    There, that's much better.

    Parent

    "The real killing?" (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 11:54:02 AM EST
    So, here we go with the paranoia and conspiracy theories...

    Parent
    You do know that the U.S. government (none / 0) (#45)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 11:56:58 AM EST
    has numerous ways besides standard weapons to put down an armed rebellion.

    Parent
    Nukes, for example (none / 0) (#51)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 01:20:27 PM EST
    Also drones.

    Parent
    They don't need nukes (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 01:37:48 PM EST
    Drone to locate you and new technology to incapacitate you or make you run away. Two I've read about.

    More serious technologies are being developed that involve microwaves attuned to human nerve receptors. These technologies hold the potential to inflict unbearable pain on large groups of people.

    The Active Denial System is being developed to help with crowd control. It is a non-lethal, directed energy weapon that transmits an invisible electromagnetic radiation beam that creates a burning sensation on people's skin. This causes a pain response in people and motivates them to run away or leave an area where the Active Denial System is being used. Military officials have called this the "goodbye effect."

    Because of its ability to inflict a burning sensation on people's skin, the Active Denial System is also commonly called a "heat ray." Defense contractor Raytheon Company has been developing an Active Denial System for the U.S. military. Current models of the system that are undergoing tests transmit an electromagnetic beam of radiation at 95 GHz - much higher than the 2.45 GHz of radiation transmitted by a microwave oven. The Active Denial System can heat up water molecules on a person's skin to 130 degrees Farhenheit from a distance of 500 yards.
    ...
    Currently, the Active Denial System is only available as a vehicle-mounted weapon. However, the U.S. Marine Corps and several U.S. police forces are working to develop portable versions of the device. In June 2010, the Active Denial System was deployed with the U.S. military in Afghanistan. However, after the news media reported on the use of the system, it was pulled out of Afghanistan. The U.S. military stated in late 2010 that it is continuing to test the Active Denial System.



    Parent
    Wow $500,000 in annual grants to (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:48:04 AM EST
    to establish, improve or expand shooting ranges. Where are the protests about funding welfare programs? Why can't they pull themselves up by their boot straps? Welfare cowboys good - mothers on welfare bad.

    What people don't understand about the grants (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by scribe on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 08:25:20 AM EST
    is that those are funded by an existing special excise tax on guns, ammunition, hunting and fishing equipment.

    The Robinson-Patman Act, passed in 1937, imposes an excise tax of 10 to 11 percent (depending on the item) on guns, ammunition, hunting equipment and fishing equipment.  This money is collected by the federal government and then returned to the states for use as grants to fund improving wildlife habitat, purchasing properties for public hunting (public hunting lands) and fishing (e.g., boat launches), and creating and maintaining shooting ranges which are open to the public (either government-owned or privately owned but open to the public).  This program has made millions, if not billions of dollars available for these purposes.  Most of the wildlife people now see and enjoy - regardless of whether they are hunters/anglers or not - has a home and a chance of existence because of this program.  And, non-game wildlife benefits (and exists) because habitat improvement and preservation benefits non-game species as well as game species.

    As to the shooting ranges, providing a safe place for people to shoot is really important for a lot of reasons, most of which are quite obvious.  One could go off to a gravel pit, set up a few targets, and shoot them, with all the attendant safety, good neighbor and related issues, or one could create a shooting range designed, built and operated to recognized safety standards.  As a society, we decided the latter would be far preferable.  That this range will be professionally operated is only a plus.

    In short, all this is being funded by the people participating in the activities, and society is deriving benefits - both in wildlife and safety - from them.  Ironically, the amount of money collected from the excise tax has skyrocketed since the great rush of gun and ammo buying began shortly after Obama was elected in 2008.  I've seen, at gun shows, little pictures of Obama over the caption "World's Greatest Gun Salesman 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012", one of the most trenchant comments yet.  And, it needs be noted, that the retail prices for ammunition have roughly doubled since 2008, also increasing the amount of excise tax collected.

    Thanks for the education (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 08:38:39 AM EST
    Still not convinced that funding more and bigger shooting ranges is the way to spend tax money but all for using the excise tax for wild life habitats.

    Parent
    It's excise tax money, which is not the same (none / 0) (#12)
    by scribe on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 09:12:16 AM EST
    as income tax or other tax money.

    Only the people participating in the activity are paying the tax - it's a voluntary tax, in the truest sense.

    And it's not just shooting ranges being paid for.  It's paying for (1) habitat improvement for fish and wildlife, (2) actual purchase of land for fish and wildlife and outdoor recreation, (3) improvements to the land purchased in #2,  and (4) acquisition, construction and improvements (including upgrades for enhancing safety and accessability) to shooting ranges open to the public.  "Open to the public" is the key term - even if it's on private land or a provate club, to get the grant they must be and commit to remain open to the public for shooting.

    Parent

    Excise tax on cigarettes (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 09:37:22 AM EST
    Only the people participating in the activity are paying the tax and yet the money collected is used for other purposes.

    Federal

    One of the beneficiaries of tax revenue from cigarette sales is the federal government. The revenue goes directly to help fund the Children's Health Insurance Program; it's a program that helps uninsured, low-income families provide healthcare services for their children.

    State

    The latest U.S. Census State and Local revenue data of 2008 indicated that states amassed $16 billion dollars in taxes from cigarette sales. The revenue obtained from the taxes goes directly to balance states' budgets and fund state healthcare programs.

    Local
    Many municipalities impose cigarette taxes at the local level. The revenue goes into the localities' general funds for various local projects, such as road maintenance and school renovations.

    Already stated that I think using some of the money to develop and maintain wildlife habitats was a good use of the funds.

    Maybe instead of building bigger and better shooting ranges those funds would be better used building bigger and better mental health programs since according to gun advocates that is the only problem.

    Also with

    "Open to the public" is the key term - even if it's on private land or a provate club to get the grant they must be and commit to remain open to the public for shooting.

    Does "Open to the public" mean open to those who pay the required fee or fees? If so, IMO the requirement for funding is just expanding the customer base and does not somehow make it less of a business welfare program.

    Parent

    MO Blue (none / 0) (#15)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 09:30:05 AM EST
    It is also a way of educating people with guns.  I think people who shoot should practice, don't you? I think they should know how to load and unload their gun, when the safety is on or off, gun safety practices......

    Parent
    To me it is not a question or whether or not (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 09:48:06 AM EST
    there should be shooting ranges or people should practice shooting their guns but a question of whether funding private shooting ranges is a good use of tax revenue.

    With all the dedicated gun enthusiasts and several large, well funded organizations dedicated to the promotion of more and more guns, I believe that private enterprise could finance them without state and federal funding.

    You evidently believe that they are a good use of tax funds. I do not.

     

    Parent

    plus (none / 0) (#16)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 09:32:57 AM EST
    if they are shooting at a range they are not shooting in their back yard without a backstop and hopefully if they do decide to target shoot at home after shooting at a range they will know they NEED a backstop.

    Parent
    Surely if we did not fund shooting (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 09:53:52 AM EST
    ranges without state and federal tax dollars no gun owner would ever shoot off their guns in the backyard. After all, gun owners are responsible, law abiding people who are never a danger to themselves or others.

     :-)

    Parent

    every little bit helps (none / 0) (#24)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 10:38:24 AM EST
    every chance you give to people to get edjumacated, helps.  And isn't it the gun nuts paying the taxes for this stuff anyway?  Seems like a win win to me.

    Parent
    Like stated previously (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 10:54:43 AM EST
    "non gun nut" excise taxes go towards other unrelated activities that promote the general well being of the general population.

    As also stated, we disagree on the the use of the funds. To you, it subsidizes activities that meet your approval . To me it is still a welfare program for private business.

    Parent

    fwiw, "shooting off their guns... (none / 0) (#38)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 11:32:33 AM EST
    in the backyard" can be both legal and safe.

    Parent
    O.K., (none / 0) (#39)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 11:40:28 AM EST
    if you disagree with Teresa that might be some risk involved I'm not going to argue the point. Seems like if it both safe and legal, there is even less reason to use state and federal tax revenue to fund shooting ranges.

     

    Parent

    excise tax or the grants, I just wanted to point out that many people use guns responsibly on their own property.

    Parent
    I'm sure that they do (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 12:11:26 PM EST
    I'm also sure that some properties are more suited to target practice than others.

    Just so my position is clear: I am not in favor of state and federal revenue being used to fund private businesses. That position is not "just" because we are discussion a shooting range.

    Also, I am not now or ever have advocated "banning all guns." I do think like in anything else there are responsible gun owners and some gun owners who are not responsible. I think some people should not have any access to guns at all. I also think there should be reasonable regulations for gun ownership and restrictions on the types of guns and magazines allowed.  

    Parent

    This range is not a private business. (none / 0) (#48)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 12:18:23 PM EST
    The grant program provides funds (none / 0) (#49)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 12:41:08 PM EST
    for both government-owned or privately owned shooting ranges.

    This money is collected by the federal government and then returned to the states for use as grants to fund improving wildlife habitat, purchasing properties for public hunting (public hunting lands) and fishing (e.g., boat launches), and creating and maintaining shooting ranges which are open to the public (either government-owned or privately owned but open to the public).


    Parent
    of this thread is not a private range.

    Could you link me to your quote, I could not find it via google.

    Parent

    I was quoting scribe who is (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 01:22:13 PM EST
    extremely knowledgeable and reliable about the information he provides even though we disagree on this issue. I never read anything that he has written that was not accurate.

    My comment was not just about this specific shooting range but about using tax revenue to build shooting ranges in general and privately owned ranges in particular. Most of the comments in this thread are not specific to just the range in the post.

    More to your point this particular range is a joint venture between the county and the military. The military will be operating the facilities but will be using the range for strictly recreational purposes and not for training. Profits will go to Fort Carson.

    Do you really want me to go into what I think about the military owning and operating businesses like shooting ranges?

     

    Parent

    from scribe.

    It would seem from googling around that each state has it's own requirements for eligible grantees.

    Parent

    BTW, it is not just gun ranges and the like (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 08:56:05 AM EST
    I am not a fan of using tax revenues (whether in the form of taxes collected or tax credits or absolving them of paying taxes) to fund private enterprises.

    Parent
    I have to correct myself on one, minor point (none / 0) (#55)
    by scribe on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 02:18:12 PM EST
    The act which created the excise tax on guns, ammunition, hunting and fishing equipment and provides for distributing it to the states is the Pittman-Robertson Act, not the Robinson-Patman Act.  Robinson-Patman is an antitrust statute.

    For some reason, I had antitrust, "P" and "R" on my mind this morning.  Sorry.

    Parent

    Responsible, mature, (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 09:07:07 AM EST
    law-abiding people - who also don't mind paying an admission fee - go to shooting ranges; the problem is that these people are generally not the same people we keep reading and hearing about on the news.  

    All anyone ever seems to say is that we need better mental health coverage and treatment.  We need that anyway, don't we?  I mean, take guns out of the equation - it's still way too hard for people who need mental health care and treatment to get it.

    There are too many guns.  Period.  And there is too little oversight with regard to the buying, selling and licensing of guns.

    I'm glad that Colorado gun enthusiasts will have a state-of-the-art facility for their hobby, but you could put one of these facilities in every city and town in America and it wouldn't end the carnage, wouldn't keep drunk, drugged, angry, desperate, sick people from deciding that shooting someone is the best way to handle whatever's bothering them.


    so after we ban all guns (1.00 / 2) (#20)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 10:13:37 AM EST
    how do we keep all those " drunk, drugged, angry, desperate, sick people" from using fists, knives, explosives etc.....? and now how do law abiding citizens who want to protect themselves in their homes do so?  How do hunters hunt?  

    STOP THE PRESSES: just now saw a story on HLN, woman sees suspicious man outside of her house.  She take her young sons into a closet along with her gun and when the gun broke in he couldn't just rob them, he had to find them in the closet. So she shot him. Good thing she had a gun. If he had just robbed the house and left he would have gotten away.  But he had to seek them out in the closet.  What was his motive, rape, worse?

    Parent

    "So, after we ban all guns" (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by shoephone on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 10:15:58 AM EST
    Who, exactly, is promoting that?

    Parent
    The "meme" is promoted (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 10:30:56 AM EST
    by organizations like the NRA and gun shops to increase gun sales. It is a highly effective and profitable marketing technique.

    Parent
    go back and read Anne's comment (1.25 / 4) (#26)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 10:42:49 AM EST
    she was pretty broad in her condemnation of people owning guns in general.  If she had been more specific I would have been too.

    Parent
    Maybe you should go back and read it (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by shoephone on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 10:47:18 AM EST
    This is what Anne said:

    There are too many guns.  Period.  And there is too little oversight with regard to the buying, selling and licensing of guns.

    That statement makes a lot of sense. But it is hardly a call to ban all guns.

    Parent

    Of course, if you believe that (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by shoephone on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 10:49:49 AM EST
    drunk, drugged, angry, desperate, and sick people owning and using guns is no problem, then there's no point in trying to use reason with you.

    Parent
    Oh, so your inability to address what (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 11:00:50 AM EST
    is actually stated in a comment is my fault, because I wasn't specific enough?

    I think I was quite specific.  I said there were too many guns, and too little oversight; on no planet where people speak English is that a condemnation of people who own guns.  I've never been shy about stating my opinions, or had difficulty expressing myself; if I supported a ban on all guns, I'd have said so.  

    If you weren't sure what my position was, you should have asked instead of doing what you usually do: make sh!t up and put words in people's mouths.

    Parent

    After reading the story, I'm (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 10:39:35 AM EST
    fairly certain that the woman did not use an assault rifle equipped with a high capacity magazine to defend herself.  

    Parent
    after reading Anne's comment (1.00 / 3) (#30)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 10:52:42 AM EST
    are you pretty sure she was only talking about banning "assault" rifles with equipped with high capacity magazines?
    See, this is how these discussions go off track and become useless and silly.  I am as guilty as anyone probably, but here is the thing: either follow the actual conversation or don't comment.  Your comment is a jump off on to a side track. It has nothing to do with what or why I said what I did. And I know you are smarter than that.

    Parent
    I wasn't talking about banning guns (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 11:06:31 AM EST
    AT ALL, Teresa, and anyone who reads my comment understands that.  Well, except you, because apparently, you want to have an argument about banning guns, and making sh!t up is the only way you can do that.

    Given that you have shown - again - that you are incapable of "following the actual conversation," I think you should take your own advice and stop commenting.

    Parent

    I am smarter than that (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 11:11:41 AM EST
    That is why I am not falling for you using Anne's comment to go into your "ban all guns" meme as a "jump off on to a side track."

    After reading Anne's comment, I am very sure that she did not mention banning all guns so it seems you chose to divert the conversation to one on banning all guns.

     

    Parent

    In whose comment did you read (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 10:51:32 AM EST
    something that makes you able to say, "so after we ban all guns...?"  Certainly not in my comment - I don't think you will find either the word or the concept - so I have no idea to whom you are responding, or why you think you can use my comment to make your point.

    And I know you will be thrilled to be in the same company with jim, who already came here brandishing that same "breaking news" about the great benefits of gun ownership, but you do understand, don't you, that one example of an incident that turned out okay does not balance out the many, many more that do not?

    As for all the law-abiding citizens who want to protect themselves in their own homes, something tells me that the need for protection would go way, way down if there were fewer of the illegal variety of guns in circulation.  NOTE: I am not saying to ban weapons.

    Of course, knives, fists, baseball bats and explosives - you forgot chemicals! - can and will be used by the angry/drunk/drugged/sick/desperate people who don't have guns and ammo handy, but that isn't a reason to think the status quo is working - or an argument to do nothing: it isn't.  

    I'm a law-abiding citizen, too, who doesn't have guns in my home, or my car or on my person; I have as much right to be safe from the idiots who think guns make them smart(er) - not all of them are criminals and many are legal gun owners - or who think that that reaching for one is the best way to solve whatever life throws your way, as you do from those who think breaking into people's homes to steal their stuff is the same thing as having a job.

    Parent

    The "ban all guns" claims (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 10:56:21 AM EST
    No one is arguing for a ban on all guns.

    how do we keep all those " drunk, drugged, angry, desperate, sick people" from using fists, knives, explosives etc.....?

    The magnitude of risk presented by people using other weapons is far less than someone with a gun.  It is also much easier to kill multiple people with a gun than other weapons.

    and now how do law abiding citizens who want to protect themselves in their homes do so?  How do hunters hunt?
     

    Since no one is talking about a gun ban, let them use guns with a limited fire capacity.

    Parent

    I was expecting to see you (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by sj on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 11:21:08 AM EST
    jump on jim's bandwagon and here you are.  Y'all just love you a gun-lover's anecdote.

    Parent
    d'oh (none / 0) (#21)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 10:14:14 AM EST
    when the guy broke in.....

    Parent
    Fair enough, so far as it goes, but (none / 0) (#13)
    by scribe on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 09:14:35 AM EST
    it's only ever the law-abiding people who get their rights curtailed whenever gun control comes up in the discussion.

    Parent
    Forget about registering (none / 0) (#47)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 12:13:26 PM EST
    all guns.  Maybe we should give gun owners IQ tests instead before they can own a gun.
    Investigators with the Cecil County Sheriff's Office say [ten-year-old Aaliyah] Boyer was watching fireworks with relatives outside their home in Elkton around midnight New Years when she was struck on the top of her head by a bullet.

    Neighbors told deputies that they heard the celebratory gunfire going off when they were outside looking at the fireworks.


    Link.

    Yes, some bozos decided it would be fun to shoot their guns into the air on New Year's Eve, in celebration.
    Did these idiots not think (well, I guess they weren't really "thinking") that, when they shoot into the air, the bullets have to come down someplace?  It's not like the bullets are going to achieve escape velocity and go rushing off to the moon.
    I would rather that people who want to shoot off their guns go to a well-managed shooting range than shooting their guns off randomly in their back yards.  
    And yes, I do realize that people who know what they are doing can set up safe shooting ranges on their properties.  It's the morons who don't know what they are doing, or who don't care, who are a danger in that regard.

    Oy (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by sj on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 04:57:27 PM EST
    Maybe we should give an IQ test to commenters when they're registering.  

    I wonder if I would pass it?  Site is blocked for me at work.

    Parent

    Hahahaha! (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 05:24:16 PM EST
    Good one, sj!

    Parent
    let's give an IQ test to voters (2.00 / 1) (#57)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 04:02:40 PM EST
    voting matters and shouldn't be left to the ignorant and uninformed.  What other rights should we give only to those who pass an IQ test?

    Parent
    Angeles Shooting Ranges, it looks like this CO will be bigger. It's fun to try to hit targets (metal gongs) at 600 yards.

    boo hoo (none / 0) (#58)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 04:26:35 PM EST
    people got their panties all in a twist and gave me meaningless bad ratings for not being part of the echo chamber.  I'll have to go find my fainting couch.
    Sorry I am not going back and jumping in to the pissing match. It's a waste of time.
    Today a friend who is a member of the NRA and owns guns (I am not and do not) accused me of wanting to take people's guns away because I think his side of the divide is going to have to give some ground and I make those arguments with him all the time.
    Here is the point, he is on the extreme right on this topic or close to it.  Some people here are on the extreme left or close to it.  None of you on either side are part of the solution as long as you have no respect for people who don't agree with you. I am interested in a solution.  My perception is that lots of people are just interested in winning the argument and being right, or smarter than the other side.
    The way I see this national debate going right now, I think there will be little bits of fluff legislation that pass and no real change.  That will be a very sad lost opportunity.

    Probably right (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 05:03:16 PM EST
    The way I see this national debate going right now, I think there will be little bits of fluff legislation that pass and no real change.  That will be a very sad lost opportunity.

    But that will be because:

    1.  The NRA/gun lobby has a lot of money and therefore tremendous influence 9not so much with gun-control groups)

    2.  It's too late to lock the barn.  There are @ 300 million guns in the US, many/most of the semi-automatic variety.  Many of the people who own these guns are extremely protective of their "right" to own these kinds of guns, many to the point of paranoia - like your friend.

    3.  Most people would not support an actual "gun grab" designed to get the most dangerous guns out of circulation.

    For these reasons, any new legislation will nibble around the edges, as opposed to anything truly groundbreaking.  But it has nothing to do with gun control advocates acting unreasonably.

    BTW - Since you say you want a solution, what would your solution look like if you could design it without concern for what was passable (politically)?

    Parent

    Would you support (none / 0) (#65)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 06:18:22 AM EST
    A gun grab of any kind?

    Parent
    Define "gun grab" (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 06:36:42 AM EST
    Would you consider the AWB of '94 a "gun grab"?  The National Firearms Act of '34?

    I'd need to look at proposed alternatives, but I would support a ban on all guns capable of firing more than a limited number of rounds (5-10?) before being reloaded.

    Parent

    Gun grab (none / 0) (#67)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 04:52:50 PM EST
    Equals confiscation.


    Parent
    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 05:24:51 PM EST
    I'd support a national gun buy-back program like they had in Australia.  I would also reinstate the AWB of 1994.  I'd extend the taxation/registration provisions of the NFA to assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, semi-automatics and handguns.  Background checks would be required on all transfers, whether through a dealer or private party.  Bolt/pump/lever action guns with lower capacities would be exempt from the NFA requirements.

    Parent