Guns shouldn't be so easily obtained, they should be tough criminal checks and a limit on the capacity of ammo you can have at one time among many other things.

no change on my stance. everyone in that theater should have been straped, and ready to shoot that bastard, and feeled him full of lead, while he lay on the the theater floor bleeding to death.

an't nothing changed, it's still the wild west, just with more powerful guns, that spit led a 5 times the speed as cults did back then.

Most states do have tough background checks on gun purchases and limtng ammo purcahses won't change anything.  Many gun owners will go through several hundred rounds at the gun range each sitting.   And Holmes only fired 150 or so rounds out of the 6,000 he purchased.  In fact, very few gun involved crimes involve morre than just a couple of rounds.

150 is plenty to kill many though, plus if some stranger came to my gun shop and bought 6000 bullets in one go, i would be suspicious. wouldn't you?

10 Is enough to kill 10 people.   10 from Store A, 10 from store B, 10 from store C and 10 from store D is enough to kill 40 people.

And what makes one a stranger to a business?  Must you know every customer personally?

I mean what is the restriction was down to 200 bullets per purchase?  That wouldn't have prevented this tragedy at all.

And as I said, it's not uncommon for gun collectors and range shooters to purchase large quantities in one go.

Actually, it isn't impossible to deny that.

Largely because statistically mass shootings don't actually happen more in the US per capita then other places... despite the US generally being a more violent place culturally.  (Though sometimes it feels that way, if only because the US has so many people population wise.)

what if they don't come from the same town as the shop owner or if it's the first time they met, they ARE a stranger then. Gun shops ain't like supermarkets, they only get a small amount of customers compared to say Walmart. AND those who collect and/or shoot for sport should have to prove it, i think that's reasonable. But to be honest there is no quick solution to this problem, although something MUST be done to sort it, especially since YET another massacre has occurred. this time in an attack against sikhs

Our problem isn't the guns, it's the intention behind the guns.   You don't solve a problem by banning.  That has never in the hsitory of this planet worked.  EVER.   You solve problems by learning the underlying motivations and dealing with that.

Bandaids don't fix a broken arm.

Mass Shootings however... aren't unhard of in the UK.

Additionally, though there are more crimes comitted with guns, that doesn't mean that the overall crime rate isn't lower BECAUSE of guns.

Those two can both be true statements... and largely seem to be.  Mostly due to the fact that crimes are almost always caused by people you know.

Now a days it's actually fairly easy to manufacture your own guns if you want by hand if you have the right every day tools.

Surely it would work this way, with other illegal activity like drugs and prostitution then. Clearly the war on drugs flopped just like ban on booze in the 1920's