[CNP]

Originally Posted by scrapper

Can't argue with that point, it is the people, I think the argument that has merrit is the tools those people choose. The Colorado shooting lasted less than three minutes I may stand corrected on that but what ever the time frame it was short. His total victim count was 79, he used an over the counter assault style weapon with high magazine capacity. I think we can all agree had he used a rifle that require reloading after 4 rounds he would not have been able to get off the number of rounds he did in that time frame. The key to preventing these incidents, which may not even be possible is the intense investigation that will go through the entire incident, the person and his state of mind, the venue, in this case a theater, everything possible leading up to the event including the weapons used.

Regardless of what any of us think the the final outcome will be decided by the majority of people. It will not be made by gun enthusiests like the people on this forum and it will not be decided by the anti gun lobby. What just may be the saving grace for the assult rifle crowd is some form of restricted access, if every nut bar that wants to attack crowds of people has access to the style of gun that you are most interested in then yes that weapon is going to be put under a microscope, however if access to that weapon is tightened up then only the the true enthusiest will own them.

I own restricted weapons and while I may not like it I know they are restricted for a reason, I know the extra screening is an attempt to weed out the crazies. I can tell you one thing for sure I would much rather my government use this method rather than a ban, the extra screening is worth it as long as I can still own my hand guns. What it will never do is solve the problem of handguns on the street. Organized crime will always have full access to any type of weapon they want, no gun ban will solve that problem. However some form of additional screening may just keep them out of the hands of the mentally ill is something that the general population may lobby for.

As gun owners, we will all be effected but we may as well be part of the solution than precieved as part of the problem, being proactive is always better than being reactive. We either get our message out in a moderate organized manner or run the risk of falling out of favor with the majority of the electorate, the people that WILL have the final say.

Remember guys this is just my opinion, nothing more. There are people on this forum that will use it to attack me and call me all sorts of insulting names, for nothing more than expressing my opinion, the moderates will see it as just another point of view wheather they agree with it or not.

What difference does it make if a person uses a pistol or a rifle to take someones life? Your argument is based on the need for an "assault rifle". For one, I do not believe you know what an assault rifle is; and two, your pistol is feared more than any assault rifle.

Authorities say Holmes legally purchased four guns before the attack at Denver-area stores — a semiautomatic rifle, a shotgun and two pistols.

. Why is it you believe that owning a pistol is OK but owning an AR-15 is not? Don't you know that there are many who would say that pistols are designed for one purpose (you used this anti-gun rhetoric against assault rifles)? I think you are out of ammo on this and just running on stubborn.......thats my opinion.