10 shot dead at Batman showing in Denver

23-07-2012 11:02AM

K-9 wrote: »

Nah, the most bizarre thing was posters going on about bringing children to the cinema.

Yes, was talking to a mate in America over the weekend and there seems to be a lot of talk about the children in the theatre so late at night, like as if they asked to be shot.:(

Reindeer · 23-07-2012 11:37AM

Kirby wrote: »

I don't think they are though. For example, what strides have been made in gun control in the last ten years? Barely any. If anything I would say they have gone backwards.

For something like this to happen, the government have to be committed to it and I don't think they are. The senators just look to one-up the other party and the president just wants to be re-elected. Sure they will make noises especially when a tragedy like this happens.....but the gun laws rarely get better.

If you study the link, you'll note the last entry is about the US Supreme Court confirming that the handgun ban in Washington DC was unconstitutional back in 2008.

This brings us back to what has to be done before much further gun laws can come about...they must repeal the 2nd amendment.

I am not a betting man, nor can I predict the future, but I would wager my money on the second amendment stcking around for at least another several generations.

goat2 · 23-07-2012 12:49PM

RVP 11 wrote: »

Yes, was talking to a mate in America over the weekend and there seems to be a lot of talk about the children in the theatre so late at night, like as if they asked to be shot.:(

my guess, the children are at cinema with parents, hard to find babysitters that can be trusted sometimes, and anyway, the child can fall asleep and picked up and put in car at end of night, i see nothing wrong with a child being at cinema late at night, it was not a nightclub, and anyway child was with own parents, at least they make sure their children are safe and secure with them,

no one expects that a night at a cinema is going to end with a murderer standing up and shooting at them as they sat, what a nightmare.

opinion guy · 23-07-2012 12:53PM

Nodin wrote: »

The most bizarre thing in this thread so far has been someone using it to do a bit of Shinner bashing, and I'm 100% sure that wasn't me.

K-9 wrote: »

Nah, the most bizarre thing was posters going on about bringing children to the cinema.

I'm pretty sure the most bizarre thing about this thread was that a guy went into a Batman movei, shot the place up, killed a bunch of people, and told the cops he was the Joker and that he had booby trapped his flat.
Yup that's the most bizzare thing.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 23-07-2012 12:53PM

if you can take a child to a cinema at midnight why not a nightclub?
there'd be equal levels of loud noise and flashing lights
maybe a little less drunk people but drunk people aren't neccesarily dangerous to young children if they are with their parents

Mickeroo · 23-07-2012 01:09PM

MadsL wrote: »

I take it you have never eaten game? Nor lived on a farm. Nor lived in remote area with the strong possibility of meeting bears, mountain lions and snakes. Many "Joe citizens" in the US have guns for exactly these purposes. Gunowners in the US have them for a tool and/or home defence. Trust me, the very last thing a gunowner wishes for is to have to use it in their own home.

Bear's are much better dealt with by using mace and afaik (could be wrong so apologies if i am) its illegal to shoot them in the states? Obviously extreme cases of self defence can't be helped but even then you have to present evidence that you were in danger and failing to do so could get fined along with jail time. I know you're not supposed to shoot grizzlies/brown bears ( even if they're threatening livestock), black bears are another story I think.

I'm pretty sure its also illegal to shoot cougars in many cases, though I know certain states offer paid hunts. Basically if there's an animal of this sort giving you trouble you're supposed to call the wildlife services and they deal with it , usually by relocating the animal, they'll shoot it if they have to though.

I'm sure there's slightly different rules state to state.

As for snakes, they're fair game I'm pretty sure (although could be species dependant) but i can't imagine they're the easiest thing to shoot

Though I lean more towards the anti-gun side of things, I have no problem with hunting and guns really are the most humane way to kill game. I can't believe someone would advocate the use of traps over a proper hunting rifle.

23-07-2012 01:15PM

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

if you can take a child to a cinema at midnight why not a nightclub?
there'd be equal levels of loud noise and flashing lights
maybe a little less drunk people but drunk people aren't neccesarily dangerous to young children if they are with their parents

Yes but alcohol licensing laws dont deny access to minors to cinemas, they do however deny them access to nightclubs and bars.

Tym · 23-07-2012 01:23PM

Bear's are much better dealt with by using mace

Jesus, I don't know anything about bears or guns, but wouldn't that just piss it off:O And good luck getting away after getting close enough to mace a bears eyes:O

Run_to_da_hills · 23-07-2012 01:34PM

Too bad this old guy wasn't at that movie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjH3ZMUks1o

23-07-2012 02:29PM

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Too bad this old guy wasn't at that movie.

Yeah that's right what we need is "More guns"
Said in a Father Ted Voice.

Tony EH · 23-07-2012 03:49PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Paid for by whom? Bear in mind, it is unConstitutional to make carrying out a Contsitutional Right unaffordable to any persons who may wish to exercise that right, so it means coming out of the government's coffers. Given that there are some 80 million gun owners in the US, you're talking some serious dinerii.

Canada attempted to do nothing more than establish a database of who owned rifles in the country, a much smaller population, and a much more affordable task. After fifteen years, and over a billion dollars, the registry was abandoned as ineffective and a waste of money.

Well, I have my own issues with the 21-year-old limit for beer, but there are national age minima. To buy a handgun from a dealer you must be 21, for a long gun you must be 18. Some States have their own lower limits for certain circumstances like intra-familiar transfers (eg father to son).

Which will check what, exactly? The National Instant Criminal Background Check System checks on an individual's record, both criminal and mental. What other things do you believe should be checked in this process, and who will pay for the checking to be carried out?

That's a non-starter. One does not need to explain why one wishes to exercise a right, that the right exists is sufficient grounds. But if the answer is "Self defence", that answers that, as the Supreme Court has said it's a right which every American is authorised to use a firearm for.

The government shall hire the instructors and certification process then? The other problem is that, again, you will be arguing the Constitution. Arms are a right, not a privilige. (Besides, isn't the problem you're trying to assess that the people in question are hitting their targets? Surely it's the ones who miss and will fail the qualification that you're not so worried about!)

Those rights also deserve not to be in quotation marks, because they are legally recognised. You may not like the right, but the right exists.

Aren't the murder laws supposed to cover that? Or the laws on self defence?

NTM

I haven't even bothered reading your posts. You aren't adding anything logical to the debate. It's just gainsaying and I'm not interested.

You want to play with your toys, well fine.

It'll be up to the adults in the States to sort out the problem.

Essentially what your are saying here is "**** people if they get get killed by a looney who can but killing tools with ridiculous ease...I don't care."

That's not a position I am willing to entertain.

Tony EH · 23-07-2012 04:00PM

Kirby wrote: »

A guns only purpose is to kill. Thats what it was designed for and thats it's function. So unless you want to kill somebody, you have no use for one. Joe citizen has no use for a gun in his everyday life and therefore he should not have access to one.

Laws should change with the times. It made sense in the era that the constitution was drafted to allow every citizen to own a gun. But that simply doesn't make sense anymore and allowing a person to walk into a store and buy a gun like he would buy milk is simply ridiculous.

Crazy people will always do crazy things and try and kill people. That won't change. But they should not be given access to weapons that destructive. Allowing every tom, dick and harry to go buy a rifle is just asking for trouble.

The problem is, though, is that there will always be these 2nd Amendment gob****es who continue bleating on in the most inane way.

In addition, it's not like gun control means "takin' away ur gunnn's". It isn't either/or.

The present situation is akin to allowing any unqualified fool to step into a 16 wheel articulated lorry and drive it away, which I sure eveybody would agree is madness.

Helix · 23-07-2012 04:17PM

Kirby wrote: »

For every responsible gun owner, there are ten morons who wind up killing people.

55,000,000 gun owners in the united states means that, by your wonderful claim above, 50,000,000 people will end up killing people, while 5,000,000 are fine gun owners who will not

A Primal Nut · 23-07-2012 04:22PM

I wouldn't normally be anti-gun as such and some of the arguments people are making about self-defence, hunting, etc are fair enough. But in that case you are talking about basic shotguns, pistols, etc. But the weapons used in this case included an assault rifle capable of firing 50 to 60 rounds a minute (which luckily jammed) and a semi-automatic rilfe. It's unlikely anyone would have quick access to such a weapon in a self-defence situation. I can't think of any reason a private individual would have such a weapon other than for fun or for killing lots of people.

So what do people think? If the anti-gun lobby focused on these kinds of weapons, would they have more success. Would more pro-gun people agree?

Ok, you can still kill and injure people with normal guns but would be much harder to carry out a massacre of this kind.

Witcher · 23-07-2012 04:31PM

Kirby wrote: »

For every responsible gun owner, there are ten morons who wind up killing people.

200,000+ firearms licenced in Ireland...where are these murders you speak of?

I myself have 2 firearms, I shoot regularly with a group of lads that have either the same amount or more...there are another 150+ members in the club with each holding at least 1 firearm. Not one person has shot anyone...your stats are BS.

A Primal Nut wrote: »

But in that case you are talking about basic shotguns, pistols, etc. But the weapons used in this case included an assault rifle capable of firing 50 to 60 rounds a minute (which luckily jammed) and a semi-automatic rilfe.

?

He had one rifle and it was not an 'automatic' or an 'assault rifle' or any of the other buzzwords you picked up from a newspaper. It was a semi automatic AR15...they aren't some mystical firearm you can only get in the US, there are actually several licenced in Ireland and nobody has shot anyone with one.

People are demonising S/A rifles when we do not even know how many of the deaths and injuries were as a result of it, apparently he changed to his shotgun quite early on...for all we know most of the shots might have come from it.

It is not the firearms that are to blame in this incident or any other, it is the people who are getting their hands on them..banning guns doesn't solve anything it just stops law abiding people from enjoying them as part of their chosen sport. Put your blame on the fcuking people...maybe it is a bit too easy to get a firearm in the US...that is not the fault of a gun or the people who use them legally...it's the law but that is never going to change, don't ban firearms...stop lunatics getting them.

Remmy · 23-07-2012 04:40PM

A Primal Nut wrote: »

I wouldn't normally be anti-gun as such and some of the arguments people are making about self-defence, hunting, etc are fair enough. But in that case you are talking about basic shotguns, pistols, etc. But the weapons used in this case included an assault rifle capable of firing 50 to 60 rounds a minute (which luckily jammed) and a semi-automatic rilfe. It's unlikely anyone would have quick access to such a weapon in a self-defence situation. I can't think of any reason a private individual would have such a weapon other than for fun or for killing lots of people.

So what do people think? If the anti-gun lobby focused on these kinds of weapons, would they have more success. Would more pro-gun people agree?

Ok, you can still kill and injure people with normal guns but would be much harder to carry out a massacre of this kind.

According to the police chief of Aurora that was interviewed, the Gunman used an AR15 with a 100 round drum magazine. This is a semi automatic rifle i.e it will fire a single round for every pull of the trigger. With that in mind I'm curious as to how the maximum rate of fire number that is being bandied about in the media is figured out. It is important to note that this is not what is referred to as an 'Assault rifle' which is a rifle with a select fire capability. Neither is this rifle an 'automatic weapon' as it will only fire one round for every depression of the trigger.

The police chief also said the shooter was carrying a Remington 870. This is a generic pump action shotgun found in many configurations .It has versions with short barrels and also versions with 30 inch barrels which would be used for clay pigeon shooting .

He had also two glock .40 caliber pistols. One which was left in his car and one that was kept on his person.

Manic Moran · 23-07-2012 04:41PM

haven't even bothered reading your posts. You aren't adding anything logical to the debate. It's just gainsaying and I'm not interested.

Reminds me of the Monty Python argument. Gainsaying is the automatic contradiction of anything which is said. The post which you quote and announce you couldn't be arsed to read does not say 'no you're wrong', but instead brings up some practical questions which must be addressed in order to attain your desired endstate. Waving a magic wand and saying 'there must be changes' is a wonderful political soundbite, but lacks a little of the practical realities.

Unless you are prepared to explain how something is to be done, don't bother suggesting it at all: You have contributed nothing to the conversation.

Bear's are much better dealt with by using mace and afaik (could be wrong so apologies if i am) its illegal to shoot them in the states?

Until post 9/11 legislation, it was mandatory for anyone flying an airplane in Alaska to have a firearm in the aircraft for survival purposes in case they are forced to make a landing in the wild. Lots of bears up that way, apparently. Then 9/11 happened and all sorts of knee-jerk reactions happened, including removal of that provision: It is now optional to bring a firearm. Most bush pilots will bring one anyway. It is illegal to hunt bear excepting in certain circumstances, but it is legal to shoot one if it seems to be taking a particular shine to you. And you probably want something bigger than the rifle used in the cinema.

Went camping in Northern Nevada a whiles back with a group of colleagues, together with a lad from Las Vegas. Partway through the night, there was a "what the hell was that noise?" moment as there was some loud growling in very close proximity. The locals immediately pulled out their firearms, as the chap from Vegas sits there stunned. "Dude, you didn't know that there are animals which can kill you out here?"

But the weapons used in this case included an assault rifle capable of firing 50 to 60 rounds a minute (which luckily jammed) and a semi-automatic rilfe

As far as I know, the AR-15 rifle used was a semi-auto, capable of firing 50-60 rounds per minute. I can empty my 30-round magazine in my M4 in about five seconds, but the M4 actually is an assault rifle.

As for snakes, they're fair game I'm pretty sure (although could be species dependant) but i can't imagine they're the easiest thing to shoot

Snakeshot. It's kindof like a small shotgun shell, usually for use in a pistol.
http://media.midwayusa.com/ProductImages/Large/709816.jpg

The likelihood that I would need a gun in the kind of situation you are outlining is minimal, especially in Ireland, where very few people have guns

That's fine, but the difference is that I'm not in Ireland.

America has so many guns because it's the most paranoid place on earth

Partially. It's also one of the cultures on the planet which most heavily emphasises self-reliance, both on the individual and the local community level. This means that if something needs to be done, instead of getting on the telephone and waiting, or relying on someone else to do what you should be able to do yourself, go and do it yourself, and get it done right now.

The senators just look to one-up the other party and the president just wants to be re-elected

After what happened to the Democrats in 1994, it's not surprising that they don't want to touch the subject. You are correct that gun control has gone 'backwards' (from your perspective, at least) in the last fifteen or so years. Here's a graph showing the national violent crime rates since 1960.
http://allthatnatters.com/2009/05/20/daily-graphic-us-violent-crime-rate-1960-2008/.As you can see, it peaked in 1992, we're back down to mid 1970s levels right now.

NTM

Nodin · 23-07-2012 04:47PM

Tony EH wrote: »

I haven't even bothered reading your posts. You aren't adding anything logical to the debate. It's just gainsaying and I'm not interested.

You want to play with your toys, well fine.

...................

...............

You taking yours and going home?

pookiesboo · 23-07-2012 04:52PM

They showed his court appearance on Sky News live from Denver, he was completely out of it, really spaced out. So creepy

Ush1 · 23-07-2012 05:11PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Until post 9/11 legislation, it was mandatory for anyone flying an airplane in Alaska to have a firearm in the aircraft for survival purposes in case they are forced to make a landing in the wild. Lots of bears up that way, apparently. Then 9/11 happened and all sorts of knee-jerk reactions happened, including removal of that provision: It is now optional to bring a firearm. Most bush pilots will bring one anyway. It is illegal to hunt bear excepting in certain circumstances, but it is legal to shoot one if it seems to be taking a particular shine to you. And you probably want something bigger than the rifle used in the cinema.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/149674/its-coming-right-for-us

Manic Moran wrote: »

Partially. It's also one of the cultures on the planet which most heavily emphasises self-reliance, both on the individual and the local community level. This means that if something needs to be done, instead of getting on the telephone and waiting, or relying on someone else to do what you should be able to do yourself, go and do it yourself, and get it done right now.

I've never got that impression any time I've been there to be honest. It probably differes area to area but certainly around cities people expect lots of conviences but what are the upshots of what you are saying? Get what done now with reference to having so many guns?

My overall impression was mass paranoia. I was in nice neighbourhoods where people wouldn't knock on the door of someone elses house if they didn't expect them.

When I was in south Florida all the Haitian cab drivers were scared to death and would never knock on someones door or even beep the horn outside. I asked them about it and they said it's just too dangerous.

Holsten · 23-07-2012 05:11PM

Yeah thought that too!

Either some good acting or he is on some strong medication!

Basq · 23-07-2012 05:24PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvE4Mtrx-rM

Check out his widened-eyes expression about 22 seconds in..

Mickeroo · 23-07-2012 06:00PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Until post 9/11 legislation, it was mandatory for anyone flying an airplane in Alaska to have a firearm in the aircraft for survival purposes in case they are forced to make a landing in the wild. Lots of bears up that way, apparently. Then 9/11 happened and all sorts of knee-jerk reactions happened, including removal of that provision: It is now optional to bring a firearm. Most bush pilots will bring one anyway. It is illegal to hunt bear excepting in certain circumstances, but it is legal to shoot one if it seems to be taking a particular shine to you. And you probably want something bigger than the rifle used in the cinema.

Yeah I know you're allowed shoot them in self defense in the wild alright but even then bear mace is always an alternative and just as effective in most cases. You're not allowed shoot them just for showing up near your farm or house though (alaska might be different, don't think they're considered endangered up there).

There was a guy in Idaho put on trial last year for shooting a grizzly on his property because he feared for his family, I think they eventually dropped the charges though otherwise he was facing a 50 grand fine and a year in jail.

Susannahmia · 23-07-2012 06:45PM

Holsten wrote: »

Yeah thought that too!

Either some good acting or he is on some strong medication!

I dunno I get the feeling he's just acting.

MadsL · 23-07-2012 07:01PM

Kirby wrote: »

A hammer is a tool. It's function is non violent. It can be used to kill, but so can a fork. But that is not a fork's function. It's used for eating. You can use just about anything to kill a person. But the item is doing something it wasn't intended for. When a person kills somebody with a gun, the gun is fulfulling its purpose. It is purely designed to kill. That's all it does.

Once again you display you outstanding ignorance of the topic, well done. I suggest you consider why, if all a gun has to do is kill a person, there is an astonishing array of calibers, configurations, styles and ammo. The reason? They are designed to do a wide range of jobs, from killing rats around the farm to shutting down engine blocks at 1000 yards for police snipers.

And tazers can kill people, just like the fork or hammer. But it's function is to incapacitate. To disable. That's what makes it a much better option.

According to who? What training have you undertaken to establish this? Any studies? Real world examples? Or just your years of experience locked in a dark room playing video games?

And regarding Madsl and his deer advice, I'm not an expert but I'm pretty sure there are other ways to kill deer without a rifle in your hand. There might be some cave paintings you could google for some advice if your ego can take being outsmarted by people who could only point and grunt.

Very witty. I take it then that you are advocating bow hunting, actually very popular here. No doubt were I to start a thread on it, you would jump in with some comments about barbarism. As to traps, frankly you hadn't really thought that through had you, much like most of your posts.

Kirby wrote: »

No. I'd prefer to see nobody hunt. But thats a seperate issue for a seperate thread. The hunting issue as it pertains to guns is that the people who like to hunt game don't need a gun to do it. Therefore the argument that if guns are banned they can't hunt is a silly one.

I'd love to see you take on a wild boar with a bow without a firearm for when you miss and just p1ss it off.

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

This is crazy to me. I just don't get this line of thinking. The likelihood that I would need a gun in the kind of situation you are outlining is minimal, especially in Ireland, where very few people have guns. I would be more inclined to buy a hedge trimmer for a hedge I don't have. I will be more likely to have to trim a hedge in the future than be in a situation where I would need to use "deadly force".

That's why we are discussing the US, try to keep up.

Kirby wrote: »

Stop using logic to destroy their justification for keeping their dangerous toys. It's not fair. If the Pro-gun side are crazy than us anti-gun crowd have to act crazy too. Logic is not aloud.

You see, what I have seen so far from the debate in this thread is reasonable arguments, backed up with facts and statistics, from those who actually have some training with firearms, and some understanding of the actual circumstances in the US. Meanwhile, the so called "anti-gun" side want to throw the label "gun-nut" around and claim that logic is not aloud (sic) whilst asserting that they have a magic bullet to make all the badness go away, simply get rid of guns from the law abiding and the 'problem' will go away, whilst absolutely failing to see that legally held guns are tiny, tiny fraction of the problem.

Kirby wrote: »

Removing the guns from the hands of both the criminal and citizens is a monumentally difficult task. It would likely take years of debate, countless different programs and initiatives and billions of dollars. But just because something is difficult, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

Out of interest, you may not be aware of the 50k+ murders in Mexico over the last 6 years. Gun control in Mexico has done as you suggested and effectively removed defensive guns from the citizen, including retired police officers. So years of debate, countless different programs and initiatives and billions of dollars might not achieve what you think it will achieve.

Concealed carry became more popular in the 80s, and make of this what you will, I'm not suggesting any interpretation, American deaths from assault have dropped dramatically towards the OECD average - still higher, but on a downward trend. Also fewer people are keeping guns at home

It's a moot point anyway. It won't happen. Any government who suggested as much would be lynched.

You need to kill it by degrees. Implement better gun control laws. Slowly but surely implement new laws over time. It couldn't be down overnight. Softly softly is the only way. It would take years....decades even.

Kirby wrote: »

I don't think they are though. For example, what strides have been made in gun control in the last ten years? Barely any. If anything I would say they have gone backwards.

For something like this to happen, the government have to be committed to it and I don't think they are. The senators just look to one-up the other party and the president just wants to be re-elected. Sure they will make noises especially when a tragedy like this happens.....but the gun laws rarely get better.

I think you need to read some history. That is exactly what has been happening since 1934.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa092699.htm

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/politics/jan-june09/guntimeline_04-16.html

Seriously, do you even bother to look this stuff up, or is it just what comes to you off the top of your head.

Kirby wrote: »

I never said it was pointless. I said it was dangerous and foolhardy and there were much better options that don't involve countless deaths.

Really? A study in 1995 published in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology found that the threat simply retreated 55% of the time when shown a gun.

I'm still waiting for you to back up a single assertion that you have a made with a single fact instead of emotive phrases like "dangerous and foolhardy" and "countless deaths". But it suits your point of view to argue from a point of general ignorance that all guns are the same, a lack of real information seeing America as out of control and all people who own or use guns as gun nuts.

Meanwhile, Ireland in 2008-9 was the gun murder capital of Europe; Limerick then Dublin (worse than DC in places) and the last week or so have seen at least six armed robberies. Much more fun to bash America though...

Mickeroo wrote:

Yeah I know you're allowed shoot them in self defense in the wild alright but even then bear mace is always an alternative and just as effective in most cases. You're not allowed shoot them just for showing up near your farm or house though (alaska might be different, don't think they're considered endangered up there).

I'm well aware that you would probably have many more questions to answer about killing a bear than a person in self-defence in many states. Nonetheless, people do carry in bear country. Parks and Wildlife recommend at least .44 caliber pistols and bear mace. There was a case recently where a guy unloaded a 9mm into a grizzly - the bear walked away! It was later found dead, but still walked away full of bullets. Doubtless some will say that large calibers serve no purpose.

delad · 23-07-2012 07:53PM

pookiesboo wrote: »

They showed his court appearance on Sky News live from Denver, he was completely out of it, really spaced out. So creepy

He's an interesting motherfcuker. Straight A student. Was up to recently studying for a PHD in neuroscience. Never in trouble with the law. A model citizen. A remarkable young man by all accounts. Then something changed. Something happened. I'm sure this case is a psychologists wet dream. Wonder what made the guy flip out? My guess is that he heard the wimax song one too many times.

Nodin · 23-07-2012 07:56PM

A Primal Nut wrote: »

I wouldn't normally be anti-gun as such and some of the arguments people are making about self-defence, hunting, etc are fair enough. But in that case you are talking about basic shotguns, pistols, etc. But the weapons used in this case included an assault rifle capable of firing 50 to 60 rounds a minute (which luckily jammed) and a semi-automatic rilfe. It's unlikely anyone would have quick access to such a weapon in a self-defence situation. I can't think of any reason a private individual would have such a weapon other than for fun or for killing lots of people.

So what do people think? If the anti-gun lobby focused on these kinds of weapons, would they have more success. Would more pro-gun people agree?

Ok, you can still kill and injure people with normal guns but would be much harder to carry out a massacre of this kind.

Apparently most of the shooting was done with a pistol.

Manic Moran · 23-07-2012 08:00PM

MadsL wrote: »

Parks and Wildlife recommend at least .44 caliber pistols and bear mace.

Interesting.I just had a look at the The State of Alaska's website, they suggest a .300 Magnum rifle or better.

For comparison purposes, the .300 Magnum cartridge is the big one:
http://herohog.com/images/guns/ammo/Many_bullets.jpg

The 5.56mm fired by the 'powerful AR-15' (Standard model, you can get them in all sorts) is the little guy next to it. One can draw one's own conclusions about powder loading and energy.

Reindeer · 23-07-2012 08:01PM

Certain states have differing laws on the hunting of bears. Grizzy/Brown Bears however, are federally protected in the lower 48(where they are all but extinct), and a certain amount can be taken in Alaska per year). Mountain Lions/Puma/Cougar are protected and their hunting heavily regulated. Obama and the Federal government not too long ago released a statement via the DOJ that Federal/National parks gun laws are now to mirror the state's gun laws where the park is located. In most states this now meant it was legal to carry a firearm on national parkland.

You may use a firearm in self defense against all animals in the States(another reason for the second amendment). Ireland has something like 26 indigenous animals, whereas American have nearly that many that are dangerous or potentially dangerous alone.

You forgot to mention Wolves in your previous post. One of the main reasons I carry a firearm at work. Wolves are also protected in nearly all states. I see them, as well as bear and cougar on occasion in my job - I work as a timber cruiser in the pacific northwest. I do the timber and flora inventories and species types and health checks in the forests for the government and for land management companies and logging operations. I am in remote areas, some untouched by man for hundreds of years, if at all, and I work alone. In this job, you WILL see a bear, wolf, or cougar sooner than later. Mace/CS gas is nearly ineffective on all aggressive animals let alone bears, which tend to be rather robust and territorially aggressive. Bear spray is better than nothing, literally, as it can blind the bear and ruin it's sense of smell so you might be able to escape. The only problem is you need to hit the bear square in the face with it, and get within 10-15 feet, and the wind must not be blowing in your face because it is MUCH more effective on you than the bear. Good luck with that. I don't bother with it. A 44 magnum with very heavy hunting loads is minimum defense against bear if you want a good chance of surviving an attack. With a firearm, the noise alone can sometimes make a bear think twice before approaching you. This can be used at any distance you can sight a bear at in most forests, instead of waiting until they arrive at your feet as with spray. Bears have incredible sense of smell and large territories. I do not know a single forester that has never seen a bear in person in the woods. I saw a mother and cubs last month chilling near a trail. She mostly ignored me, and I changed my route. One of the main guys I contract with had one challenge him last spring. He stood his ground, but he had a large revolver pointed at the bear the entire time. The young buck eventually moved on. That bear was nearly 3 times his size, and was close enough to smell.

Cougars like to surprise you. At least Bears make noise from the very size of them moving through the forest. A cougar will jump down on you if possible, so you need to be careful around outcroppings, large trees, etc. Also try not to crouch down for any reason. I have learnt to tie my boots whilst standing. Loud noises will often frighten these away. Barring that, a 44 magnum is very effective.

Wolves are the most frightening. When you see a Bear, it will be alone or with cubs. When you see a cougar, it will be alone. Loud noises like gun shots will nearly always frighten these away, or at least you can focus on the single entity approaching. Wolves are never alone. Never. If you see one, now you have to worry where the rest are as well. The moment I see wolf, I will brandish my revolver and shoot near it as a warning. The pack emboldens the Wolves, and sometimes you have to fire multiple shots to ward them off. Without a firearm, out in the proper woods alone, you are bear, cougar, or Wolf meat sooner or later.

Elk, and deer can also be aggressive. Usually you can not surprise them, but during rutting season they can be amazingly aggressive.

Mickeroo wrote: »

Bear's are much better dealt with by using mace and afaik (could be wrong so apologies if i am) its illegal to shoot them in the states? Obviously extreme cases of self defence can't be helped but even then you have to present evidence that you were in danger and failing to do so could get fined along with jail time. I know you're not supposed to shoot grizzlies/brown bears ( even if they're threatening livestock), black bears are another story I think.

I'm pretty sure its also illegal to shoot cougars in many cases, though I know certain states offer paid hunts. Basically if there's an animal of this sort giving you trouble you're supposed to call the wildlife services and they deal with it , usually by relocating the animal, they'll shoot it if they have to though.

I'm sure there's slightly different rules state to state.

As for snakes, they're fair game I'm pretty sure (although could be species dependant) but i can't imagine they're the easiest thing to shoot

Though I lean more towards the anti-gun side of things, I have no problem with hunting and guns really are the most humane way to kill game. I can't believe someone would advocate the use of traps over a proper hunting rifle.

MadsL · 23-07-2012 08:14PM

A Primal Nut wrote:

I wouldn't normally be anti-gun as such and some of the arguments people are making about self-defence, hunting, etc are fair enough. But in that case you are talking about basic shotguns, pistols, etc. But the weapons used in this case included an assault rifle capable of firing 50 to 60 rounds a minute (which luckily jammed) and a semi-automatic rilfe.

It was one semi-automatic AR-15, with no reports as to caliber. Let's not suffer from inflation on what he brought to the cinema.

Two handguns, one shotun and an AR-15. Pretty much a standard arsenal for a Colorado male. Sad thing is his local range refused him membership. but no-one took it further. For all the people calling for psych tests there is probably no better judge than gun professionals at detecting the nuts.

Even sadder is these psychos.

http://www.examiner.com/article/westboro-baptist-church-stunt-exploits-the-vigil-for-the-aurora-shooting-victims

10 shot dead at Batman showing in Denver

Comments