12 dead, 58 injured in Colorado at midnight showing of Dark Knight

Something I am curious about.

How many shots could the shooter's AR-15 fire before reloading?

I don't own a gun but I thought gun laws were weakened in 2004 to legally allow the sale of rifles that fired more rounds without reloading. Did the change in law allow the shooter to legally buy a more lethal weapon?

 

The poorly named Assault Weapons Ban was allowed to expire in ... 2004, I think. He bought an after-market drum-style magazine that held more than 100 rounds of ammo.

It likely looked something like the thing in the middle of this photo.

 

And what's the justification to have a 100-round magazine? Anyone?

 

As a gun owner, none.

On top of that, they don't work well. They jam much more often than conventional 30-round magazines, which is why the military doesn't use them. The only people who buy them are pawn shop Rambos and other wannabes. And, sadly, this guy in Aurora.

 

Because if high-capacity clips and magazines are banned, freedom is lost, according to Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.)

 

Lots of people in lots of places getting concealed-weapons permits. But I'm sure none of them are actually buying guns.

http://www.ajc.com/news/gun-stores-report-surge-1484732.html

Mass killings sure are phenomenal for business.

 

Love the snark, but if a journalist wants to tell me that gun sales are up, it might be nice if they cited gun sales, not the number of background checks.

Otherwise, we're just guessing at the number of guns sold.

And now, you present the anecdotal evidence from one shop, where it's unclear if 200 guns is double what he normally sells, or double what he normally sells on a Saturday.

 

Well, see, gun sales would be carried out by private shops, which aren't a matter of public record and would be difficult to quantify.

The number of background checks is public record and can therefore be quantified.

You can continue to troll and insist that people are just getting background checks for the fun of it, but those of us over here in the real world who can put 2 and 2 together and get 4 aren't buying it. Meanwhile, the guy says he had a phenomenal day, but you're questioning the semantics of the statement.

 

So, when you don't have actual evidence, you just cite some other numbers, and extrapolate. Nice.

Where else does this work?

As for the "phenomenal day" it should just be put in the proper context. Do you know whether or not 200 sales is double what he "usually sells" or double what he usually sells on a Saturday? I don't. Don't you think there's a difference between the two?

 

Good storytelling here on the randomness that led two men to the theater that night.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/the-long-road-to-theater-9/2012/07/25/gJQAdX6T9W_print.html

 

Yes. You cite the available evidence, and you extrapolate conclusions. That's what analysis IS. That's what journalism IS. Journalism is NOT blindly presenting lists of numbers or one quote from each "side" of a debate.

 

All these gun shop owners are lying about a spike in business as well.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2012/0725/Why-gun-sales-spike-after-mass-shootings-It-s-not-what-you-might-think