Colorado Movie Shooting

[HAL]

If this is the case then what is the point of allowing civilians to own guns?

Because idiot - it's a constitutional right.

It's in the Constitution, and there's nothing that can practically be done to remove that right from that document. There is a method but it's not practical and won't happen.

Might as well shift the discussion to unemployment in the UK.

As British jobless toll soars, UK bosses recruit thousands in Romania

[Brakeman]

Lets not forget the psychological aspect of a armed population. Would this shooter have created this plan if he knew there was a likelihood of several armed patrons? Probably not. Why do robbers tend to avoid cop bars?  In theory it makes great sense to arm all of the "good" guys. But in practice this fails because we cant tell the good guys from the bad guys sometimes.

I have a Concealed weapon carry permit but I very, very, rarely use it.

[Frank]

If this is the case then what is the point of allowing civilians to own guns?

Because idiot - it's a constitutional right.

It's in the Constitution, and there's nothing that can practically be done to remove that right from that document. There is a method but it's not practical and won't happen.

When that was written people had muskets and single shot pistols. Those people never envisaged the weapons available to the American gerneral public today. Ergo only let the public have muskets and single shot pistols since it doesn't actually state that they can have the very latest the the gun industry has to offer. Lets see how keen Americans would be about guns if that happened.

I would also point out that "arms" doesn't just mean guns. What about artillery, grenades, rocket launchers, attack helicopters, etc etc. I notice the government doesn't allow people to have them. So there are limits to this "constutional right". I see no reason why those limits can't be extended to include more powerful guns.

[HAL]

Frank,

Give it up. The Constitution isn't going got be altered no matter what. It ain't going to happen. The second amendment is not going away. To argue that it should is a waste of time, because it won't be removed. It's most likely going to be there for hundreds of years or until we have supercomputers that can analyze human brains to the extent that it can predict who are going to be gun murderers.

You can bitch and moan all day and make a 200 page thread about why it's a dumb amendment in the 21st century but nothing is going to change.

Now, go ahead and continue the bitch-fest as if what I said is not true, I don't give a fuck.

[Frank]

Frank,

Give it up. The Constitution isn't going got be altered no matter what. It ain't going to happen.

It does not take a constutional change to limit the type of guns available to the civilian population. It's been done before so I don't see why it can't be done again. Only this tme permanently.

[Seppuku]

It isn't practical to just outlaw guns, but ideally something should be done about the problem. Making the requirements for legally owning a gun a lot stricter might be a nice start. Heck, from the way it seems, it's easier to get a license to own a gun than it is to drive a car. Both in the wrong hands can result in fatalities. Guns have some legality here in the UK, so people who use guns for sport don't actually miss out. We lack the gun culture and if you're ever caught with a gun and you're not hunting, it's not in your gun cabinet or you're not at a shooting range, you'll have your ass handed to you. I understand for the US it's a big issue and a very difficult one to overcome, but it would be good to see some action taken to help solve the problem. Unfortunately gun control is such a sensitive topic and because it's a constitutional right, it doesn't seem to actually go anywhere.

Also, just because the US has a constitution, it doesn't mean it can't be amended again. Hey, we chartered the Magna Carta 800 years ago, how much of it do you think still applies today? Heck, a local man to me, who unfortunately was a boring Puritan Christian, by the name of Oliver Cromwell, even said "fuck the Magna Carter" (not his exact words) but prior to the English civil war, it was argued the king had his rights to the throne because it was bound by constitutional law. But that changed and whilst we do still have a monarchy, they have no where near as much power as they used to.  If you want to change or go against your constitution, you can. Heck, you already do. Unfortunately the US constitution is protected by frothing at the mouth flag waving patriots. Though to my mind, patriotism is not about saluting the flag and living in nostalgia but having the ability to right your wrongs so that you can better yourselves as a nation.

Of course, the UK is damn flawed and I don't try to point fingers. And yes, unemployment fucking sucks here, I can tell you that first hand.

[Frank]

Of course, the UK is damn flawed and I don't try to point fingers. And yes, unemployment fucking sucks here, I can tell you that first hand.

Every nation on the planet has flaws but when something is so obviously doing harm something should be done to stop it. You don't just go in for a lot of hand wringing. turn a blind eye and blithely carry on until the next time. A terrible thing has happened again. If the lives of those people are count for anything a response is required. What is that response to be?

[Nick]

Response will be nothing.  Republicans are in the pocket of the NRA and Dems fear the NRA.  Therefore, nothing will be done.

[Seppuku]

Of course, the UK is damn flawed and I don't try to point fingers. And yes, unemployment fucking sucks here, I can tell you that first hand.

Every nation on the planet has flaws but when something is so obviously doing harm something should be done to stop it. You don't just go in for a lot of hand wringing. turn a blind eye and blithely carry on until the next time. A terrible thing has happened again. If the lives of those people are count for anything a response is required. What is that response to be?

I totally agree. In all these years of people talking about gun crime and these massacres repeating themselves and gun crime being a large problem, and it IS a large problem, not enough is being done. Unfortunately, people are so defensive of the constitution that they're not ready to accept its flaws (which might have not been so flawed when it was written, but things change and like a species must do to survive, the law must adapt). Heck their adamant defence just turns to denial of any evidence that suggests guns are a bad thing and fall back on the attitude that: guns don't kill people, people do. Yet it has not helped at all. The argument I had last time on these forums to do with gun law, the biggest defence through all of the stats and facts thrown at the way, the best defence was: it's a civil right. Like, all those victims in that theatre in Colorado had their rights respected.

Changing US gun law now would be a logistical nightmare and it's hard to predict the effects (consider that, guns will still be in circulation, it just means honest law abiding citizens don't have them), but that doesn't mean it should be disregarded. If congress said, "right, lets do something about gun control" after columbine, the US may already be past the first stepping stone and heck, it might even have been possible that this massacre never happened. Instead the problems at Columbine were scape goated, as they usually are.  Given this guy tried to impersonate The Joker and Bane, somehow violent movies will be viewed as poisoning the minds of upstanding citizens.

The first step, as a far as I can see, I might be wrong, but it would be to make it much stricter and much harder for any old regular Joe to acquire a gun license and also have a restriction on what kind of guns can be owned. But because it's a constitutional right and seen as a civil liberty, getting anybody to agree to even small changes is a whole battle in itself. It's sad, but that's the way it is and I really wish it wasn't. But hey, half of the world's problems wouldn't exist if people were more reasonable.

But my point about point fingers is that, I don't think it helps and I know fingers could be pointed in our direction, sure we may not suffer from all of the same problems and where we do share them we might not necessarily share them to the same degree, but I don't think pointing out all their flaws at any given opportunity, even when they recognise them themselves is particularly helpful. Maybe I'm too positive of a person or just naive. Of course, the US isn't the only place with problems of that scale, but I accept that there aren't many Syrians on the forum or Iranians or Egyptians and well you get the idea. Of course, you know the normal response when you do start talking about America and I think you can make some valid points and some people even find themselves agreeing with you. So you'll do what you do and you're welcome to it though I am sure people here probably would like you to cut them some slack in that respect. But to each his own really.

[MadBunny]

People are spending all this time blaming guns.
Whatever happened to just blaming the crazy person?

He could have...


Made a nitrite bomb out of fertilizer
flown a plane in to the building
crashed a cement mixer through the building
released a crate of malaria ridden mosquitoes into the building
locked all the doors and tossed flaming gas cans into the theater
tunneled under the theater and and built an underground lake full of alligators and dropped everybody into it through a giant trap door..
built bombs out of mace and fireworks


There is an infinity of things he could have done, some less probable than others[1].

Having *more* guns would likely have not been a good answer for reasons already covered, but having the nation collectively crap it's pants and pass legislation that punishes millions of law abiding people is not a very good answer either.

I'd say a better answer is to have health care that is comprehensive enough to deal with more crazy people.  Sort of like the answer to abortions is not to make them illegal, but to make contraceptives easier to get.

1.	Yes, the alligator thing

[Kimberly]

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people"



"Tupac would be tappin ass.."



I love this episode, it demonstrates both sides of this argument rather effectively. Hulu it if you've not seen it.

[Gnu Ordure]

I've been thinking about school-shootings recently as I've just finished Lionel Shriver's novel, We Need to Talk about Kevin, which is written from the perspective of the mother of 15-year-old who has committed a Columbine-type massacre. Basically it's a study of a psychopath.

What was interesting is that the teenage killer was aware of the activities of his predecessors, such as Kip Kimpel, Andrew Wurst and Charles Williams, and he determined to be more efficient than them - as if it was some kind of competition.

And if you look at school shooting^Wiki, most of the incidents are in the US. Shooting up your school is almost as American as apple pie. And so there are numerous 'role models' for teenage psychos to fantasize about and imitate.

I'm sure we have teenage psychos here in Britain; but it doesn't occur to them to get a gun and kill their teachers or classmates, because there's no precedent for that kind of thing - it's never happened here.

Great novel, by the way, if you like reading about psychokillers.

[eye over you]

    Nobody here was surprised that there would be a religious slant to this from the religious nutjobs

    I'm sure no one will be suprised by this either:

There is every indication that Holmes is a CIA mind control subject that was simply carrying out his programming.  MK-Ultra is not a theory, it is a fact and the mind altering drugs used to assist in the effect are now being handed out for every ailment by doctors across our country like candy at a parade.  Of course the school shooting in Columbine and the American flag were brought up front and center as a part of the propaganda blitz following the shooting.

For we in the know, this operation and its purpose is blatant as Obama stands poised to sign the UN Small Arms Treaty on the 27th of this month.  The international soviet socialists who want the American people disarmed jumped on the scene to begin their attack on our 2nd Amendment immediately following the shooting.  But you know what?  This is not going to work.

http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/theater-shooting-in-aurora-colorado-screams-false-flag/18061/

   

[eye over you]

   For more laughs, scroll down to the bottom of the article and read the reader commentary. Well, if it's not too disturbing to be funny that is.


   Edit: For anybody unfamiliar with the reference to MKULTRA in the above article, heres the wiki link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MKULTRA

[Seppuku]

Made a nitrite bomb out of fertilizer
flown a plane in to the building
crashed a cement mixer through the building
released a crate of malaria ridden mosquitoes into the building
locked all the doors and tossed flaming gas cans into the theater
tunneled under the theater and and built an underground lake full of alligators and dropped everybody into it through a giant trap door..
built bombs out of mace and fireworks

Yes, there's lots of things he could have done. There's lots of things somebody could do in this country to murder people, sometimes they do. Heck, guns are available on the black market. Or heck, Raoul Moat used a legally obtained rifle. We lack a gun culture and as do many other countries where gun crime and even murder rates are lower per capita. In fact the stats between gun crime in the UK and US is massive, but if somebody wanted to get a hold of a gun, they could. The US has a pretty big gun culture. Gun homicides in the US are 2.98 per 100k people, UK is 0.03, Austria is 0.18. In 2010 US Homicides were over 14k (by any method), 9k of which were with firearms. Homicides (by any method) in the UK was 724, 18 of which were by gun. Okay, it's only 2 countries I'm comparing, but aren't those numbers worrying?
We both rank very highly for crime (Nationmaster puts UK and US as the top 2), in some respects the UK rates higher for violent crime, for example we've got more assaults per capita, we're actually more than double per capita. 

As far as statistics go, the UK is a pretty violent country, yet we lack a gun culture, we lack this idea that it's okay to kill a man in self defence, heck it's considered manslaughter if you do, people don't feel the need to carry a weapon because they need to protect themselves, so if they do get into trouble, people aren't walking out with a bullet in their chest, a person doesn't panic and shoot somebody. We end up with fewer murders, we end up with fewer shootings. Somebody might think it's okay to attack somebody, but it's a lot rarer for somebody to kill somebody else. The vast majority of people in the UK don't even own a gun and the numbers are small compared to the US. 270,000,000 guns are possessed by Civilians in the US, ours is a little over 4,000,000. There's no big gun stores in the UK, you can't just walk in and pick up a rifle, maybe a semi-automatic and the ammunition to go with it. The market is smaller and you wouldn't expect a town to even have a gun store. You can still get them and legally too, my next door neighbour has a rifle he uses for hunting rabbits. Gun law and attitudes to guns between our 2 countries is still pretty damn big. People still have the right to own a firearm in both countries, it's just we're limited for choice on firearms and guns aren't a part of our culture or way of life.

But heck, I wish folks would be less defensive of their 'right' to bear arms because it seems to close off the idea that guns could ever be a part of the problem. After all, a gun is just a tool.

I would not say guns are the direct cause of the problem, because there's obviously deeper issues, but that doesn't rule them out from being a part of the problem. Unfortunately, that discourse doesn't tend to get opened because people believe it's their right to be able to own and that because they're not murderers, they shouldn't be punished...not that my next door neighbour is punished by our gun laws, but hey.


In response to Kimberly's videos (and for a little bit of fun):

[MadBunny]

Made a nitrite bomb out of fertilizer
flown a plane in to the building
crashed a cement mixer through the building
released a crate of malaria ridden mosquitoes into the building
locked all the doors and tossed flaming gas cans into the theater
tunneled under the theater and and built an underground lake full of alligators and dropped everybody into it through a giant trap door..
built bombs out of mace and fireworks

Yes, there's lots of things he could have done. There's lots of things somebody could do in this country to murder people, sometimes they do. Heck, guns are available on the black market. Or heck, Raoul Moat used a legally obtained rifle. We lack a gun culture and as do many other countries where gun crime and even murder rates are lower per capita. In fact the stats between gun crime in the UK and US is massive, but if somebody wanted to get a hold of a gun, they could. The US has a pretty big gun culture. Gun homicides in the US are 2.98 per 100k people, UK is 0.03, Austria is 0.18. In 2010 US Homicides were over 14k (by any method), 9k of which were with firearms. Homicides (by any method) in the UK was 724, 18 of which were by gun. Okay, it's only 2 countries I'm comparing, but aren't those numbers worrying?
We both rank very highly for crime (Nationmaster puts UK and US as the top 2), in some respects the UK rates higher for violent crime, for example we've got more assaults per capita, we're actually more than double per capita. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Actually this page here has a nice sortable list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence


I'm not trying to argue with your logic. It makes sense that having less guns readily available makes for a lowered risk of gun deaths.  I'm just pointing out that despite our apparent gun culture here in the US statistically we're not that bad compared to the rest of the world.  Incidents of people being killed in large numbers (say, more than four) are rare enough that they stand out.

http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/seventh_survey/7sc.pdf  <-- an excellent but somewhat large pdf on the topic.

[Kimberly]

Sep that video is blocked in my country?!?! Is this it?:

[HAL]

Anyway, in this day and age with the internet and all the info you can get off it, guns aren't the issue. If there weren't any guns available a crazy person that wanted to wreak havoc would just select another weapon. Build a poison gas device, a bomb, whatever. Probably would have killed many more people using those weapons.

The genie's out of the bottle on all that stuff. Such is the society we have before us.

[Kimberly]

I don't like guns or weapons of any kind being in my house. I understand why other people wanna have them around but honestly I'm afraid I'd hurt myself or someone else. I'm just not comfortable with them I guess.

I think people are just searching for answers and right now it's easier to blame guns. This guy for all intents and purposes looks like your normal average american. Prob the weirdest thing they've said about the guy was he can't be found on any social networking site. People have no proof he was mentally ill other than the shooting itself. So in the absences of answer I think they are just trying to satisfy their own minds by blaming guns. If he didn't have access to guns I'm sure he would have found another weapon if he wanted to do something like this bad enough to do it in the first place.

[HAL]

Prob the weirdest thing they've said about the guy was he can't be found on any social networking site.

Neither can I. 

[Kimberly]

Prob the weirdest thing they've said about the guy was he can't be found on any social networking site.

Neither can I. 

Well yea but you're not in your 20's and attending college! 

[Timtheskeptic]

I have watched Penn & Teller about gun control, I have thought about the whole stuff. I do strongly believe that it is the person who should be blamed for their action, not the guns, not the video games, not the movies, not anything because those things have nothing to do with the person's decision to kill. This shooter in Colorado thinks he's Joker. Should we blame the Batman movies? No! It is because the people who created Batman only did it for entertainment purposes, not to encourage idiots to adopt some bad guys' ideologies or some claptrap.

Also, we can strip down to anything that can be harmful like rocks and sticks to explosives and blades. In my opinion, we're all going to die, we're all going to get hurt, and we're all going to have a surprise attack out of nowhere. However, that is not too uncommon actually. I've been reading the newspaper about it and it listed out dates of some people who killed at the time. It's not a lot and sure it's not the only thing that happened, but that's the thing; we're being paranoid when it's not something that is a daily occurrence.

I went on the flight to Portland, I have thought about the idea that if the flight was going to be hijacked or crash and burn, but that is not often but could happen. I still will fly and I’m not afraid of death. I've been on my own where there's danger but me never once had anyone tried to mug me, kill me, or even violate me. I have had seen a man who was covered in blood, I’ve seen a woman who got hit by a truck, but I’m not going to be hiding. The point is this; we're all going to die, but we must always live our life no matter what. We do value our life and the lives of those around us as we should, but banning weapons isn't going to solve anything.

[jetson]

There has to be a practical limit on what an average citizen in any society should be allowed to possess when it comes to weapons.  Period.  If a citizen wants to carry the latest military weapon, they need to join the military, otherwise, fuck 'em.  If they want to carry tear gas, and other explosives, they need to join the SWAT teams and other elite forces that require fully trained personnel, and ful accountability for the use of that type of weapon.

In the end, we have a fucked up group of people within our gun loving society, along with the thugs, thieves, and gang-bangers who want nothing more than the pure power to kill other human beings at their disposal.  And then we have the total wack jobs who drum up ideas like walking into public spaces, and killing people to satisfy some twisted goal.

There are plenty of great ideas on how to minimize the insanity, but allowing people to have access to this kind of stuff is beyond insane, IMO.  I wish the government would put a full stop on certain deadly weapons, and the ability of anyone off the street to pick it up at WalMart.

[Timtheskeptic]

the problem is is that the government isn't too concerned about us, they're concerned about their own desires. At least that's what i think.

[shnozzola]

Colorado, and America’s need for guns, reminded me of this:

                           (- turn on speakers to hear the Terminator ordering his selection of guns.)

http://www.hark.com/clips/qxffcnylxp-the-12-gauge-auto-loader

The Terminator: (Cocks Armalite AR-18 Rifle)
The Terminator: The 12 gauge auto-loader.
Pawnshop Clerk: That's Italian. It can go pump or auto.
The Terminator: The .45 Long slide with laser sighting.
Pawnshop Clerk: These are brand new, we just got 'em in. That's a good gun. Just touch the trigger, the beam comes on, and you put the red dot where you want the bullet to go. Can't miss. Anything else?
The Terminator: Phased-plasma rifle in the 40 watt range.
Pawnshop Clerk: Hey just what you see here, pal.
The Terminator: The Uzi 9 millimeter.
Pawnshop Clerk: You know your weapons, buddy. Any one of these is ideal for home defense. So which'll it be?
The Terminator: All.
Pawnshop Clerk: I may close early today. There's a 15-day wait on the handguns but the rifles you can take right now
The Terminator: (takes shotgun shells and loads gun)
Pawnshop Clerk: You can't do that.
The Terminator: Wrong (shoots clerk)

While it’s true there are a lot of ways for someone mentally ill to kill people - gun availability, ordering ammo rounds over the internet, etc., make it easier than it should be. Once the slippery slope argument starts, just like so many of the debates in this country, the (IMO) over-stated fear of government doesn’t allow common sense in regulations , such as being able to order 6000 rounds of ammunition.    I guess if it’s a good sale and you really need to hunt or target practice or need extra protection.  Where do you buy teargas anyway?

As has been said - tough argument, but another one I wish America could have without the screaming.

One more thing - While we learn enough to cure more and more diseases, mental illness is still not recognized for what it is  - hard not to feel the bloodlust.

[Backspace]

If this is the case then what is the point of allowing civilians to own guns?

Because idiot - it's a constitutional right.

It's in the Constitution, and there's nothing that can practically be done to remove that right from that document. There is a method but it's not practical and won't happen.

A strict reading of the Second Amendment ties civilian ownership of guns to a "well ordered militia." 

Amendment II

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.

Full disclosure: I own a gun and I'm not a part of a well ordered militia.

[Nick]

If this is the case then what is the point of allowing civilians to own guns?

Because idiot - it's a constitutional right.

It's in the Constitution, and there's nothing that can practically be done to remove that right from that document. There is a method but it's not practical and won't happen.

Amendment II

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.

Full disclosure: I own a gun and I'm not a part of a well ordered militia.

Is that a group like those guys who ride those little cars in parades?

[MadBunny]

Full disclosure: I own a gun and I'm not a part of a well ordered militia.

Neither were these guys.  Yet the managed to make the mightiest military in the history of civilization stumble.

[jetson]

You know, I generally don't care if someone owns a gun.  What I care about is the fucked up attitude that they deserve to have guns, and that this country owes them the right to do so.  The attitude of an average gun owner that say's something like "I own a gun, I keep it handy in my home to defend my life, my family, and my property" is fine with me, generally speaking.  But when people get so hopped up on adrenaline-charged emotions about their god-given right to own a fucking arsenal of seriously deadly weapons, they've lost me, and I think they need to have their rights revoked.

Along with gun ownership and use, should come a very well-balanced attitude about it's purpose, be it hunting, or simply protection in their homes.  People with those types of attitudes don't generally run around stomping about their rights to bear arms, yadda yadda.  I know this won't be popular, but I think it's an unbelievably stupid and utterly careless thing to allow people to walk around in public with concealed weapons.  Be gentle.