You must log in or register to comment.

DeNoodle t1_iw50f6p wrote

Aurora keeping it classy.


Glen_The_Eskimo t1_iw5wyzn wrote

The article says Aurora is 25 minutes away from Denver, but I've actually peed on Aurora while standing in Denver


tayroarsmash t1_iw6hgj0 wrote

I’m betting they just typed in aurora and Denver in google maps. If you do that it usually takes you from downtown a to downtown b.


Jesus_le_Crisco t1_iw9xowa wrote

I mean, I lived in aurora and was about 25 miles from Denver…. It’s a spread out city.


EWC3 t1_iw4z8qd wrote

I’m reading this story at 4:13PM in Los Angeles on Saturday, November 12, 2022. How is it possible that police arrested the guy at 10:30PM in Colorado? The shooting took place around 2:30pm according to the article which was posted at 1:11PM on Saturday, Nov 12. I see that NBC is living in the future with their news. Good trick. Minority Report is real?


AltunRes t1_iw50imd wrote

It happened yesterday. They really didn't try hard to check the date when writing this article.


TotallyNotMeDudes t1_iw50p3f wrote

Or the day of the week?

“Rolando Felipe, 18, was arrested Saturday night at around 10:30p.m. “


AltunRes t1_iw513w7 wrote

He was arrested today but it was in the morning. They really messed up this article.


Safety_Drance t1_iw55xgo wrote

Sure would be nice if those crazy assholes didn't have easy access to fire arms.


3tothethirdpower t1_iw5wvna wrote

Bro even my guns got guns.


[deleted] t1_iw5xh6q wrote



ArrrGaming t1_iwa9qdj wrote

> Cool. I would like less psychopaths with guns please.

See that's the thing - everybody would. (Okay, everybody but a select few hard core idiots on reddit.)

Meanwhile, that doesn't mean we're okay giving up our guns. I've owned guns since I was old enough to buy them (though not consecutively) and at 51, weirdly enough I've never killed anyone. There are millions of Americans just like me, and every time some bullshit unconstitutional law is passed where guns are outright banned, or magazines the size that come in the fucking box are banned, it's people like me (which is to say, non-murderers, non-psychopaths) who get a little more and more disarmed.

Take a good hard look at /r/dgu and see who all are on the other side of this argument. Here's the top headlines (as of the time I'm typing this)

  • [2022/11/07] A local man rescued a distressed child by holding suspected kidnapper at gun point (Warner Robins, GA) (

  • Preliminary[2022/11/12] Suspected home intruder shot, killed by homeowner on Southwest Side, SAPD says (San Antonio, TX) (

  • Preliminary[2022/11/12] Homicide investigation: Man dead in Kansas shooting (Shawnee County, KS) (

  • CCW[2022/11/11] 1 killed, 1 critically injured in South Shore grocery store shooting involving CCL holder during attempted robbery (Chicago, IL) (

  • Home Invasion[2022/11/11] Home invasion suspect shot accomplice before he was killed by homeowner's son, sheriff says (Katy, TX)


Ksh_667 t1_iwcb7h4 wrote

I'm in uk & I wonder why assault rifles are legal in parts of the us. I mean I get hunting & protection but i can't see a reason for anyone having a machine gun. They aren't used to hunt are they? If I'm wrong fair enough, you could fit my knowledge about guns on the back of a postage stamp.


3klipse t1_iwcdvjm wrote

Machine guns are full auto. There are like 400k registered full auto guns that are in civilian hands, the absolute vast majority of non bolt action rifles are going to be semi auto only.


CryptidGrimnoir t1_iwe0g08 wrote

I can explain some of this.

An assault rifle is a long rifle that is specifically designed for selective fire. This means that it can be set to fire automatically or semiautomatically.

If a firearm is set to automatic fire, when the gunman pulls the trigger, rounds will fire until the magazine is empty or until the gunman released the trigger.

If a firearm is set for semi-automatic fire, the gunman can only fire one round per pull of the trigger.

Automatic firearms are actually extremely rare in the United States, having their production banned since 1986. Existing automatic firearms cost tens of thousands of dollars. They've quite literally only been used in crimes a handful of times.

Semi-automatic rifles are extremely common and yes, they can be used for hunting. AR-15s and AR-10s can be used to hunt feral hogs. AR-15s can also be used to hunt varmints--rats, prairie dogs, etc.


Ksh_667 t1_iwe3rig wrote

Thanks for making this clear. Can I ask if a semi-auto gun can be easily converted to become fully auto? My knowledge is kind of limited to Hollywood films lol & it seems every criminal has access to fully automatic machine guns. I had no idea they were rare. Sorry if this is a naive question.


CryptidGrimnoir t1_iwec112 wrote

You're welcome. And no worries. I don't mind answering any honest question. And there's no such thing as a naive question.

To start, it's not a particularly difficult process to "convert" certain semi-automatics to fully automatic if somebody knows what they're doing, but it is highly illegal.

As for what you've seen in movies: As general rule of thumb--Hollywood will lie to you. They do it to tell a story, but it's still a lie.

The guns in movies fire far more rounds than the magazines will hold, with almost nobody reloading ever.

The guns in movies are much, much quieter--your average gun fight in a superhero film will cause permanent hearing loss to anyone in the room in real life. When was the last time any action movie had its characters use proper hearing protection?

As an additional note, automatic firing tends to wreck accuracy, because the gun is moving around so much.

Once again, I'm happy to answer questions.


Ksh_667 t1_iwehl7j wrote

Thanks I really appreciate this. Yeh I suspected the movies ive seen were not particularly accurate, but I just didn't know enough about any of it to know why. The average English person has no knowledge of guns. Most ppl I know have never seen one, let alone be able to identify say a pistol from a revolver, or a semi from a fully automatic.

Apart from the deafening noise, which would obv preclude all the complex conversations they have in films while mowing down lines of baddies lol, I'd have expected the semi or fully auto weapons to have more of a kick back when fired. Like I'm a 5'4 woman & weigh 90lbs. I'd expect to find myself knocked off my feet if I fired a rifle style gun. Would that be likely or am I over thinking it?


CryptidGrimnoir t1_iwel786 wrote

Happy to be of service!

Movies make everything up. They have too many rounds in magazines, the guns fire too quickly or too quietly, and in some cases, the guns fire too well. It's not often brought up, but larger magazine drums often cause the guns to jam.

There's a great deal of Americans who have just as little knowledge of firearms. I don't own guns myself--everything I know, I learned, most of it coming from firearm experts who happened to be my favorite novelists.

That's actually the thing about a lot of semi-automatics--they look similar to automatic rifles, which makes laymen all the more afraid of them.

Recoil can be tricky. There's a lot of factors that come into it, but the bottom line is that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Some heavy guns actually have less recoil and the recoil in a handgun can be surprisingly strong if you haven't braced yourself properly. This is because, if fitted with the same ammo, the guns are firing the same round. The larger, heavier gun absorbs more of the recoil across its entire frame and although the overall recoil may be greater, the felt recoil won't be nearly as strong for the gunman. The smaller handgun has it more concentrated and thus, the gunman feels that much more.

The most popular firearm in the United States is the AR-15, which is noted for having a very light recoil.

That all being said, a stranger on the Internet isn't the best person to give you advice on which firearm might suit you best, if you were ever to use one. You'd want to speak to people with experience, face-to-face about that.


George_Hayduke t1_iw86ozm wrote

Colorado already has universal background checks, magazine limits, and Denver has an Assault weapons ban. What more do you want?


quixotticalnonsense t1_iw8arjm wrote

Fascism, apparently.


MeppaTheWaterbearer t1_iw8l75x wrote


You act like the entire rest of the world doesn't exist like the only options are everybody has a gun or fascism. This is why your country is such a disgusting mess


RunNPRun0316 t1_iw9t7fr wrote

The ability to have to have those reasonable controls nationally.


earhere t1_iw8lw7a wrote

Total firearm ban


CryptidGrimnoir t1_iw92cl8 wrote

What part of shall not be infringed was unclear?


earhere t1_iw95gbp wrote

Here's the thing about the constitution: it's not an infallible document gifted from the heavens. It can be changed, and there are still errors in it that should be. Just because politicians don't want to make those changes because it is too hard and or unpopular to do so, doesn't mean they shouldn't be made.

Hell, you don't even have to change the constitution. Just make acquiring a firearm a lot more difficult than just going to a store and buying it. Make it so you need to have three personal references that the seller can contact to make sure it's not a mistake selling you a firearm. Make it so you need to have a gun safe to store the weapon before you can get one. The ease of firearm acquisition and ownership is making the country less safe, but because gun perverts will not consider any gun legislation that does not stop 100% of gun violence for all eternity, nothing changes and people keep getting killed that did not need to be.


CryptidGrimnoir t1_iw96u3f wrote

>Hell, you don't even have to change the constitution. Just make acquiring a firearm a lot more difficult than just going to a store and buying it.

You do realize that those purchases require background checks right?

Criminals ain't using gun stores.

>Make it so you need to have three personal references that the seller can contact to make sure it's not a mistake selling you a firearm.

Hell no. That's beyond an invasion of privacy. And again, criminal background checks.

And it won't do a damn thing to prevent criminals.

>Make it so you need to have a gun safe to store the weapon before you can get one.

Only if the government provides a gun safe to each and every person, free of charge.

Otherwise, it's a tax on a right and that's abhorrent.

>The ease of firearm acquisition and ownership is making the country less safe, but because gun perverts will not consider any gun legislation that does not stop 100% of gun violence for all eternity, nothing changes and people keep getting killed that did not need to be.

First of all, there's hundreds of thousands of defensive uses with firearms every year.

Second of all, everything you said does not appear to do a damn thing to actually lower crime.

Third of all, calling your opponents "gun perverts" does not do you any favors.

Fourth of all, the right to self-defense is absolute. Banning firearms infringes on our rights to bear arms and our rights to self-defense.


earhere t1_iw97p8w wrote

See, you're proving my point. Because the measures I suggested, in your opinion, won't stop 100% of gun crimes and gun violence for all eternity; they aren't worth doing. So the solution is to just continue as the country has been doing and just ignore the mass shootings that occur every other day and keep pumping more guns into the country and the hands of individuals who are one road rage incident away from committing a murder.


CryptidGrimnoir t1_iw98asg wrote

You don't have a point to stand on!

None of those measures would decrease shootings--they'd only punish the law-abiding.

Start coming up with things that would actually decrease crime!

Stop conflating gang violence with horrific massacres.

And there's literally more defensive uses of firearms by an order of magnitude compared to homicides.


earhere t1_iw98wl5 wrote

To stop crime you have to deal with poverty. Lower the wealth gap, increase minimum wage, improve schools and education. Offer more after school programs and community centers where kids can go to participate in positive activities. But, we were talking about gun violence, and if there's less guns available then there's going to be less gun violence.


CryptidGrimnoir t1_iw962ud wrote

Well, there's an actual process for how that's supposed to happen. The Constitution defines how it's actually to be amended and it's meant to be as hard as possible.

It's not meant to be done on the whims of the populace duped into believing misleading statistics from a media hellbent on spreading fear for ratings or from statists obsessed with accumulating power.

And let me ask you something--would you be so willing to ditch the protections for the 1st Amendment? After all, the Constitution is not infallible.


earhere t1_iw96vc8 wrote

What does the 1st amendment have to do with this conversation? The first amendment doesn't lead to a school shooting. Being able to call the president a piece of shit without cops beating you up and sending you to jail doesn't have anything to do with a teenager buying an assault rifle to blow away people at a school.


CryptidGrimnoir t1_iw9825g wrote

>What does the 1st amendment have to do with this conversation?

You're demanding we throw out the 2nd Amendment. It's only fair that I bring up amendments you don't want to see changed.

>The first amendment doesn't lead to a school shooting.

Actually, it could very well do so.

Sociologists have pleaded for years for the media to not report so heavily on tragedies--including school shootings--for fear of encouraging copycats.

The media tends not to listen.

>Being able to call the president a piece of shit without cops beating you up and sending you to jail doesn't have anything to do with a teenager buying an assault rifle to blow away people at a school.

Actual assault rifles are heavily regulated and have been so for forty years and cost thousands and thousands of dollars to purchase.

And what might encourage that teenager is seeing report after report in the news where they turn the shooter into a legend.


TeddyEvilTeddy t1_iw9uadh wrote

Gun law needs to be changed in some way these bodies are getting younger by the years … you must change these laws in some manner


2-timeloser2 t1_iw6vb04 wrote

“More guns, that’s what makes it safer..” r/s


Maynard078 t1_iw7b5sl wrote

Just another day of responsible gun owners out there bein' all responsible.


[deleted] t1_iw9gsc9 wrote



Maynard078 t1_iw9lzga wrote

They're only responsible until they're not. I wouldn't trust a gun owner any more than I would Adam Lanza.


[deleted] t1_iw9ts2u wrote



Maynard078 t1_iw9x15w wrote

Not by any stretch. Until "responsible gun owners" collectively admit that America has a problem with gun violence and willingly join in search of solutions than their inherent irresponsibility is baked into the DNA of the problem.


TheMagicJankster t1_iw6taxx wrote

We need to repeal the 2A


Finngolian_Monk t1_iw6tmof wrote

Sure, just throw away all of our other rights while we're at it


TheSensitiveBeard t1_iw7a9vi wrote

Why would we do that? That’s dumb. Let’s just get rid of the thing that literally every politician uses as a shield when we talk about doing more common sense things. I don’t blame anyone for wanting to get rid of it since it’s been misappropriated to be a counter argument to literally every single slight restriction on guns.


Maynard078 t1_iw7arvq wrote

Nah. Let's just repeal the 2A. It's proven useless at this point in the American evolution. It does nothing to advance society and, in fact, does everything to deter it.


[deleted] t1_iw7azwn wrote



TheMagicJankster t1_iw7gzkv wrote

Unconstitutional my ass


Steezywild12 t1_iw7ifv9 wrote

I don’t know how you can argue that it’s NOT unconstitutional. Looking at the constitution as words on a piece of paper, the right to bear arms & assemble militias is there. To suggest we do anything that violates that is by definition unconstitutional.

Maybe it would be a good thing, maybe it would end with the government committing human rights atrocities. Can’t know til it happens, or doesn’t.


TheMagicJankster t1_iw7lxwc wrote

That doesn't mean the 2A is limitless


Steezywild12 t1_iw7ro8n wrote

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Where in that statement is a limit? Shall not be infringed seems pretty clear and obvious. If guns are banned it will be unconstitutional, that doesn’t mean its right or wrong but it is absolutely against what the constitution says.


TheMagicJankster t1_iw7ruyl wrote

Look at what the Supreme Court has said


CryptidGrimnoir t1_iw92myw wrote

The Supreme Court ruled that while some limitations are permissible, common use semiautomatic firearms do not fall under such a category.


TheMagicJankster t1_iw93o4p wrote

Goal post moving


CryptidGrimnoir t1_iw94a07 wrote

I'll put it more plainly then.

The Second Amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Supreme Court says that while some limitations are acceptable, others are not.

You cannot ban firearms. It's completely un-Constitutional. And beyond that, it's asinine to punish and infringe on the law-abiding who have done you no harm.