.

Poll: Does Colorado Shooting Show a Need for More Gun Restrictions?

In the wake of the Aurora theater massacre, we're wondering how Twin City area residents feel about gun ownership vs. public-safety concerns.

The massacre at Columbine High School. The shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. The violence at Virginia Tech. And now, the rampage at a theater in Aurora, Colo., that's left 12 dead and 50 or more injured.

Incidents of gun violence often dominate the news, and after every such incident, the debate begins anew: Should federal and state governments make it more difficult for people to get their hands on guns?

In the Twin Cities area:

AMC Showplace Inver Grove To Beef Up Security After Colorado Shooting

Edina Police Working to Prevent Any 'Dark Knight Rises' Copycat Incidents

Dark Knight Rises Showings Still on in Shakopee After Colorado Shootings

Showings of 'The Dark Knight Rises' Continue in Oakdale Despite Shootings at Colo. Movie Theater

Burnsville Police Step Up Presence Near Movie Theater in Wake 'Dark Knight' Shootings in Colorado

In Hudson, Gun Shop, Indoor Shooting Range Could Open in Vacant Theater Space

 

The issue tends to divide Americans right down the middle; in April 2010, Pew Research found more Americans placing greater importance on protecting the rights of gun owners (49 percent) than on restricting gun ownership (45 percent).

That poll, of course, was conducted before this latest tragedy. So we're wondering whether this incident will have an impact on the issue in the Twin Cities region. Please let us know how you feel by voting in our poll, and describing the reason for your opinion in the comments below.

And as always, please keep the debate respectful.

chris October 12, 2012 at 08:04 PM
To all the idots that are talking about the auroa shooter having body armor. How about you do more research then one new outlet. HE was not wearing body armor it was a tac vest no protection at all. For the sake of argument though lets say he was getting shot even whlie wearing a vest still hurts like a (you know) if you would like to try it let me know a have on old one.
Ed Larson October 22, 2012 at 04:44 PM
Ben kent said: "I wish people could stop getting so worked up and treating this as a conservative vs liberal argument. I think it is time for a sensible discussion about gun control," How about we have a sensible conversation about the second amendment? It clearly states: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed If you want gun control then you should be working to repeal the 2nd amendment.
Ed Larson October 22, 2012 at 06:17 PM
Ben Kent said: "Maybe that is something that could be part of the discussion" Not to be unkind here but are the words "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" unclear?
Carbon Bigfuut October 22, 2012 at 07:44 PM
Banning semi-automatic weapons would result in making the following, in rough percentages: 1. 99% of handguns (in legal terms, a revolver would be considered semi-auto). 2. 60-70% of hunting rifles and shotguns. So why would we do that?
Ed Larson October 22, 2012 at 09:27 PM
Who called BK and idiot? Not me. It offends me that you want to infringe the 2nd amendment. BK, have the correct discussion and that would be repealing or changing the 2nd amendment.
Carbon Bigfuut October 22, 2012 at 09:28 PM
That first sentence shoud read: Banning semi-automatic weapons would result in making the following illegal, in rough percentages:
Washington County Watchdog October 29, 2012 at 08:40 AM
Really Joe? that's why every shooting I've ever heard of recently or in the past in the cities area (and across the nation) Every single shooter did not have a permit to carry! If people REALLY want a gun, they're easily going to get one. The only person dis-armed with these stupid gun bans (not full autos and grenades etc) are law-abiding citizens... Read Lott's Book "More guns, less crime" it's over 300 pages of straight up statistics, studies, and irrefutable proof that the stricter the gun laws... the more crime and violence there is. An armed society is a polite society;)
Washington County Watchdog October 29, 2012 at 08:43 AM
"guns banned here" = "rob us, don't worry"
Grace Kelly October 29, 2012 at 04:14 PM
The root of the word "liberals" is liberty. Liberals believe in keeping power in the people, not big corporations, not big government and people with super automatic big guns. So the right to own a gun does not include the right to have a nuclear bomb in a backpack, so the question becomes how powerful and how automatic can the gun be? What level of responsibility does one require before gun ownership? The crazy neighbor has shot at some perceived threat only to kill a child inside a home. That happened in Minneapolis. So the real question is how the right is regulated not whether one has the right. And it is conservatives that are pretending that the question is about the right to have a gun probably because they would like to take away rights like freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom to protest. The rights exist. The real question that conservatives should answer is how big and automatic the gun can be that is aimed at their daughter's bedroom? And the second question that conservatives should answer what the crazy neighbor has to prove before he can get that gun?
Ed Larson October 29, 2012 at 04:30 PM
How much kool aide have you had today Grace? The modern day usage of the word "liberal" has taken on a very different meaning. Toady's liberal are about restraining freedom through ever increasing taxes, regulations, welfare programs and taking the power away from the people who constitutionally own it. Please read the constitution and particularly the 2nd amendment. Those pesky worlds "shall not be infringed" are really there.
John Feia October 29, 2012 at 06:01 PM
Because it has taken on a different meaning for you does not change its actual definition: From dictionary.com: lib·er·al    [lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] adjective 1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs. 2. ( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform. 3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism. 4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties. 5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal
Ed Larson October 29, 2012 at 06:03 PM
John Feia wrote:"Because it has taken on a different meaning for you does not change its actual definition:" There is a reason liberals now use the term "progressive" It sounds so positive and less sinister. They are hiding behind the language just like the use of the word gay which by meaning has nothing to do with homosexuals.
John Feia October 29, 2012 at 07:30 PM
The word "progressive" was part of the definition supplied by dictionary.com. No need to hide. Just curious, how did you segue that into the word "gay" and anyone hiding behind it? What is there to hide behind?
Ed Larson October 29, 2012 at 08:03 PM
John Feia, If you are a modern day liberal just say so proudly. Very few are willing to. Liberals today do not support freedom. Live with that fact.
John Feia October 29, 2012 at 08:26 PM
I don't define myself by labels. Especially labels that are incorrectly defined as is the case with your erroneous description of what a liberal is.
Carbon Bigfuut October 29, 2012 at 09:59 PM
Grace, there is no such thing as "regulating a right". Would you like to have the government regulate your free speech? Or freedom of religion? Or the freedom not to have your home used to house troops during peacetime? Rights exist, pure and simple. They apply to all US citizens, except for those cases where rights have been removed from people for committing a crime because they decided to live outside the law. Granted, my rights stop when they adversely affect my neighbor, since that may be depriving him of his rights.
John Feia October 29, 2012 at 10:52 PM
@Ed Larson "Liberals today do not support freedom. Live with that fact." It is very funny how you determine what a fact is...
rob_h78 October 29, 2012 at 11:28 PM
So can we cut Defense Spending now that we have an all powerful Hunter Military?
rob_h78 October 29, 2012 at 11:30 PM
I agree it does say you can have a gun - it doesn't make any statements about magazine or clip size being protected, etc... Second - why can't I own an automatic 50 cal to put in my living room as home defense? Sure it might be overkill but why can't I? Someone took away my right to do that.
Brad Keen November 07, 2012 at 11:42 PM
Please see these State of Wisconsin Documents. I have scanned and uploaded them. Help us please. This man will kill us. Police have been here 31 times! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3Lgu9VZZus http://www.scribd.com/doc/111803229/Trevor-Report http://www.scribd.com/doc/111913239/Retstraining-Order http://www.scribd.com/doc/111909385/Letter-to-Sheriff http://www.scribd.com/doc/111909369/Letter-to-Jon-Seifert http://www.scribd.com/doc/111805937/Affidavit http://www.scribd.com/doc/111804289/Krisik-Report http://www.scribd.com/doc/111803683/Balow-Report-Kircher All of these documents will be posted on this FACEBOOK PAGE: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-Corruption-in-Pepin-County-Wisconsin/377008915715572 All 11 Videos of the threats and harassment. The police do not arrest this man, he is friends with the one cop in town. http://www.youtube.com/user/Missisippiification/videos This man has fired shotgun slugs near our home after screaming at my wife from across the road. He was not charged with disorderly or threats. Pepin County District Attouney goes hunting with his Uncle... 31 times the police have been here and he stalks my wife daily. This is small town madness. Please Help us before blood is shed in Pepin County Wisconsin
Timothy Hall December 01, 2012 at 03:40 PM
The one positive thing President Obama has done for the economy is make gun sales go through the roof. We should making buying a gun easier for economic growth. Let's face it people are not going to buy solar panels, or an electric car that cost more then their house. Tax breaks for people buying gun could also be called stimulus plan.
Jim Flaherty December 01, 2012 at 05:26 PM
Rob_h78. What makes you think you can’t have an automatic 50 Cal in your living room. All you need to do is get a class III license and allow the feds access to your home anytime they want. Oh you will also need around $50,000.00 to buy the gun. To get your class III license all you will need is a 6 month background check and a tax stamp to transfer the firearm.
terry the terrible December 19, 2012 at 04:02 AM
Bla, bla, bla. They already tried a ten yr experiment banning extra capacity mags, bayonet mounts(??? Musta been afraid of drive by bayonetings) and such and it did absolutly nothing twards reducing crime so we know another ban on (so called) assult weapons would be useless and stupid. Also. All of you folks that think taking all of our guns will solve every little thing need to be educated and taken to the range for a day of learning about and shooti.g yourself. You may even find that it is FUN! O.k., sorry for the rant. Peace... all you wicked and violent sounding gun grabbers. Leave us alone already- one of us might save your lives someday.
Timothy Hall December 19, 2012 at 10:07 AM
I am keeping my eye on a new school Venture Academy, a new Minneapolis public charter school. They might be able to make a difference.
yomammy December 19, 2012 at 12:47 PM
still...the gun didnt go off by itself....and there are laws against leaving loaded guns lying around with kids. laws only work if people follw em....
yomammy December 19, 2012 at 12:51 PM
lol...wut?
yomammy December 19, 2012 at 12:52 PM
how did prohibition work? how does banning pot work?
Timothy Hall December 19, 2012 at 05:14 PM
We need to reach people, not peoples guns. A new school is a step in the right direction. Trying to take peoples guns away would be the same as trying to deport 15 million people.
Ryan Desmond February 11, 2013 at 04:23 PM
With respect to George Zimmerman, I think it really does boil down to race and gun rights. It will be interesting to see the outcome of the trial. http://longwelllawyers.com/2012/05/the-george-zimmerman-case
rob_h78 February 11, 2013 at 05:08 PM
I think when people go into a gun show they are aware that guns will be around so I don't see a reason for more controls on them other than background checks for sales. IMHO - we should not penalize gun dealers who own stores and sell guns in a gun store with having to do background checks and not have the same rule for gun shows.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something