-
Re: Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!
Fast and Furious didn't buy guns and sell them to Mexican drug cartels. AG Holder and ATF was only monitoring sales from gun dealers along the border. Yes there was an ATF agent who suggested they actually buy guns and track their movement, but that wasn't ATF policy.
It's ironic that in every case, (RR, Waco, FF), people who were expressly breaking the law have become cult icons on the right.
If the Feds say you illegally own firearms, fight them in COURT. That's how the system works.
You don't get in a shootout with ATF agents.
-
Re: Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
giovanni_hotel
Too many Americans nowadays are against reasonable restrictions on gun ownership.
Like what? in your ideal country... what kind of 'reasonable' restrictions would have prevented this or other mass shootings? Lord knows laws against murder, attempted murder, firing a firearm within city limits didn't stop this... what laws do you see that would?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
giovanni_hotel
It's easier to get a driver's license than it is to own a gun. That's really fucked up.
Sure, when getting a drivers license generally requires a test or two and a photo taken... buying a gun from a Federal Firearm Licensed dealer (ie every pawn shop or gun store) requires a federal background check.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
giovanni_hotel
The only people who should be allowed to own high caliber semiautomatic weapons are the military and police.
First up... define 'high caliber'... because I suspect you don't even understand what a 'semiautomatic weapon' is or just what portion of firearms would be covered by your desired ban.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
giovanni_hotel
The guns rights advocates have turned into another version of the religious moral majority.
Know the difference between the religious folks and the gun folks? While the religious folks generally bicker about which is the right faith or try to push their views into the schools or public square... we, the 'gun rights advocates' have already won... the majority of the US population is against increased firearm regulation... and keep winning in court (see DC v Heller & McDonald v Chicago for a start).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
giovanni_hotel
Gun ownership has become an article of faith instead of an issue of public safety.
Because it's not a major public safety issue... too often people point to the raw # of firearm deaths and ignore the shear number of firearms and owners in this country... the vast vast vast vast vast majority of which are owned and used in a legal manner.
-
Re: Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
giovanni_hotel
Fast and Furious didn't buy guns and sell them to Mexican drug cartels.
Yes... because doing so is the only way to arm them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
giovanni_hotel
AG Holder and ATF was only monitoring sales from gun dealers along the border.
Um... it went a bit further than monitoring.
Go chat with an FFL some time... most firearm purchases are single buys, using a credit card... or cash (though if plastic is used, the chances of a multiple buy is higher).
A buyer coming in with a grocery bag full of cash... and buying a dozen firearms at a time tends to be suspicious... something that was happening at some gun stores in the south... being suspicious of these being straw purchases, the ATF was consulted... and told the FFL dealers to allow the sales to happen... assuring the FFLs that the purchases would be monitored after they left the store.
Guess what didn't happen?
Yes there was an ATF agent who suggested they actually buy guns and track their movement, but that wasn't ATF policy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
giovanni_hotel
It's ironic that in every case, (RR, Waco, FF), people who were expressly breaking the law have become cult icons on the right.
You mean that Ruby Ridge & Waco are seen as cult icons to certain limited elements of the fringe right... and that Fast and Furious outrages any reasonably thinking person be they left or right.... right?
[quote=giovanni_hotel;1174364]If the Feds say you illegally own firearms, fight them in COURT. That's how the system works.
Going to court should not be required to guarantee your rights (yes it is a last step, it should not however be a require step if the system functions properly)... most people expect to be left alone and not have to expend the massive time and financial costs of going to court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
giovanni_hotel
You don't get in a shootout with ATF agents.
I was unaware that anyone here was advocating that... in general it's a bad idea to shoot at any law enforcement officer (be they in the right or not) as they have the force of law and a badge on their side.
-
Re: Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
shaustin
Eh, shit happens. With the state of the world and the dispositions of the majority of the people in it, I'm only shocked this type of thing doesn't occur more.
Here's where your/our thoughts go wrong. How many people commit crimes out of 6-7 billion people? How many people in the 300 million or so people in the US are mass murderers? Then look at other traits. How many people, consider themselves to have been in love? How many people are sexually attracted to someone else? When you look at the real truth, Love is the rule of human behavior. I would guess, that even this murderer loved things. He just loves the wrong things, things that were destructive, rather that things that lead to constructive ends. Lots of people think that things a destructive when they are not. Thus you get people saying we should kill 1.4 billion Muslims when at least 90% of them are peaceful. Coincidently, the vast majority of them are having a lot of sex, producing lots of children. Love, is the rule of human behavior. That is why these things dont happen more often. I must add, that Love is about anything a person loves to do, not just just sex.
-
Re: Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!
So much bullshit after the slaughter of innocent people. May they rest in peace.
Even the candidates while offering platitudes about the tragedy refuse to even discuss the issue of gun control.
it was noted by - I think Atlantic monthly - that in the 48 hours since the slaughter 100 other people died as a result of guns in the US. In that same period NOT ONE person in the UK died through guns. The reason. We have very rigorous and tough control of guns.
How long will it take for the US to face up to the fact that it is the use of and ownership of guns that permits such mass killings to take place.
-
Re: Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!
The Assault Weapons Ban Act,(The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act), signed into law under Clinton in 1994 with bipartisan congressional support, expired in 2004 and most political wonks don't think there's a chance in hell that bill would be signed into law today, all thanks to the NRA.
The AR-15, a civilian version of the M-16, would have been covered under the Assault Weapons Ban Act, and would have been banned as an 'semiautomatic assault weapon', so yes this particular attack could have been prevented with more effective laws in place.
80-90 million Americans own roughly 270 million firearms, and we Americans buy over half of all the firearms sold worldwide(2007).
The sheer number of firearms circulating through this country is mind boggling.
Why??
-
Re: Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!
NRA responsible for more deaths than al-Queda IMHO
-
Re: Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
giovanni_hotel
The Assault Weapons Ban Act,(The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act), signed into law under Clinton in 1994 with bipartisan congressional support, expired in 2004 and most political wonks don't think there's a chance in hell that bill would be signed into law today, all thanks to the NRA.
Really? You think so? Get ready to be proven wrong!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
giovanni_hotel
The AR-15, a civilian version of the M-16, would have been covered under the Assault Weapons Ban Act, and would have been banned as an 'semiautomatic assault weapon', so yes this particular attack could have been prevented with more effective laws in place.
In the form that I expect the AR-15 in question was in... maybe... however the actual aspects of the law... what actually makes something an 'assault weapon' are relatively easy to get around.
Case in point... one area that was regulated was a 'pistol grip’ on a rifle (Oooo, scary! Someone might swing the rifle and take an eye out!)
With a little work (or aftermarket part (readily available)) an AR-15 receiver (the part with the serial number and the only part considered a 'firearm') can utilize a 'thumbhole stock'... which suddenly removes the 'pistol grip' definition from applying to a given rifle... never mind the fact that it shoots and handles exactly the same.
Hell... a few years ago a friend and I each purchased a Romanian version of the AK-47 (WASR-10)... while both legal at the time as is... he modified his to have a thumbhole stock (which would make it fully legal under the assault weapon ban)... while I modified mine with a telescoping stock (which in addition to the existing pistol grip, would have made it extra illegal/regulated under the assault weapons ban).
Let's go back... did the AWB prevent what you would call an 'assault rifle’ from being sold? Not really. The firearm makers slimily looked at the law, and made sure that what they built and sold was legal under it. The law (thankfully) was poorly written... and was about as effective as a law which required that all cars sold in the US have at least 20% of it’s parts manufactured in the US... the result... non-compliant cars are quickly upgraded by those with money to a compliant status!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
giovanni_hotel
80-90 million Americans own roughly 270 million firearms, and we Americans buy over half of all the firearms sold worldwide(2007).
The sheer number of firearms circulating through this country is mind boggling.
Why??
Thanks! You are helping to prove my point... despite (based on your numbers(from a source I'd be interested to see)) 270 million guns… in a nation of what? 310 million people... and we have how few mass shootings? When you compare the #’s in this country against those in other countries with tight gun control (or much smaller populations)... we are doing quite well... even if such one of shootings are a tragic event.
-
Re: Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!
I just still can't believe you invoke a 250 year old law as your RIGHT - clearly out of date and open to interpretation. It's no different to the Christians using the Bible as justification to bash gays or ban abortions or Muslim's using their version of the Koran to stone a woman to death or walk into a crowd with bombs strapped to them.
-
Re: Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
seanchai
I just still can't believe you invoke a 250 year old law as your RIGHT - clearly out of date and open to interpretation. It's no different to the Christians using the Bible as justification to bash gays or ban abortions or Muslim's using their version of the Koran to stone a woman to death or walk into a crowd with bombs strapped to them.
:iagree::iagree::iagree:
-
Re: Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
seanchai
I just still can't believe you invoke a 250 year old law as your RIGHT
Q: How old should a law be before we say that it is out of date? The 13th amendment is only 147 years old... by your logic... in 113 years... slavery will be for sure ok again... right? If so... how far back does that extend? 200 years? 150?
I'm sorry that you think that the supreme law of the land is so open to interpretation... but then I would expect that from an anti-gun bigot like you (don't worry, I've not forgotten about the other thread... I've just been busy).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
seanchai
clearly out of date and open to interpretation.
You must have missed my mentioning of DC v Heller or McDonald v Chicago... the interpretations of the "250 year old law" (as you call a 221 year old constitutional amendment) which have upheld the right of the individual citizen to keep and bare arms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
seanchai
It's no different to the Christians using the Bible as justification to bash gays or ban abortions or Muslim's using their version of the Koran to stone a woman to death or walk into a crowd with bombs strapped to them.
Actually... it is... but bigots like you do not understand the difference between a long standing law/custom which respects individual liberties (so long as they do not directly interfere with the rights of others)... and those that directly harms others... not to mention those it targets.
Again... you are an anti-gun bigot, plain and simple.
Before you cry of semantics... I will remind you that you made such a statement about yourself not once, but twice.
Don't believe me? If someone came here and said that they were "anti-gay", "anti-trans", "anti-black", or "anti-<insert group here>"... they would be called as such... you labeled yourself here as "anti-gun" which demonstrates to all who/what you are.
-
Re: Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bobvela
Q: How old should a law be before we say that it is out of date? The 13th amendment is only 147 years old... by your logic... in 113 years... slavery will be for sure ok again... right? If so... how far back does that extend? 200 years? 150?
I'm sorry that you think that the supreme law of the land is so open to interpretation... but then I would expect that from an anti-gun bigot like you (don't worry, I've not forgotten about the other thread... I've just been busy).
You must have missed my mentioning of DC v Heller or McDonald v Chicago... the interpretations of the "250 year old law" (as you call a 221 year old constitutional amendment) which have upheld the right of the individual citizen to keep and bare arms.
Actually... it is... but bigots like you do not understand the difference between a long standing law/custom which respects individual liberties (so long as they do not directly interfere with the rights of others)... and those that directly harms others... not to mention those it targets.
Again... you are an anti-gun bigot, plain and simple.
Before you cry of semantics... I will remind you that you made such a statement about yourself
not once,
but twice.
Don't believe me? If someone came here and said that they were "anti-gay", "anti-trans", "anti-black", or "anti-<insert group here>"... they would be called as such... you labeled yourself here as "anti-gun" which demonstrates to all who/what you are.
You're putting the equality of gays, blacks, trans or any group of individuals as the same as being anti-gun? You're a fucking womble and clearly, looking through you're past threads a troll.
Your question:
Q: How old should a law be before we say that it is out of date?
A: When it becomes irrelevant, out of touch and at odds with the current societies needs and morals. That's when.
Imagine the audacity to try and equate this with anti-slavery. Shame on you.
"you do not understand the difference between a long standing law/custom which respects individual liberties (so long as they do not directly interfere with the rights of others)"
It's affects the rights of others when because of the prolification of what you want has a direct affect on other people being killed. Using something out of date as your justification is no different from those using the Bible, Koran or any other crutch to support your zealous attitudes.
-
Re: Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bobvela
Don't believe me? If someone came here and said that they were "anti-gay", "anti-trans", "anti-black", or "anti-<insert group here>"... they would be called as such... you labeled yourself here as "anti-gun" which demonstrates to all who/what you are.
tbh it merely demonstrates he is British ?? We are chalk and cheese when it comes to guns.
-
Re: Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!
Defend to the death the right of every American to have assault weapons. Let him be the last man standing having slaughtered thousands who dared to challenge his right to keep something designed simply to kill. What a jackass Bobvela is... and what a dark and strange obsession so many Americans have with this ludicrous right to bear arms. Is the Constitution such sacred writ? What unreason you can argue and fall back on the Constitution as if this is an immutable law of the universe? Are not even the men who framed this fallible humans writing a set of rules based upon the realities of their time? Might those rules not actually fit our present age when weapons that can kill hundreds in minutes can now be held by people like that gunman in Colorado or Breivik in Norway.
Is not the life of the little girl who died in that cinema more sacred than your right to carry a gun?
-
Re: Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SammiValentine
tbh it merely demonstrates he is British ?? We are chalk and cheese when it comes to guns.
No I don't think it does Sammi. I've lived in the US long enough and have plenty of American friends who are anti-gun or at least anti- the ease of
ability for anyone to assault/semi-auto type weaponry. The gun lobby and manufacturers and whackos like this guy just have bigger voices, more money, cry louder and create more paranoia through their media to enable to allow them to continue to buy weaponry which clearly is for more than personal home protection and hunting.
-
Re: Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!
Personally, I think this incident is an embarrassment to the whole country. We're "the greatest country in the world" yet we let stuff like this happen. I have no words, seriously...
I really can't find a reason why a civilian should have an automatic weapon. I'm also trying to figure out how a dude can park his Hyundai in the parking lot, exit wearing full body armor, enter a theater with multiple weapons, and start shooting. Will someone PLEASE explain how this happened?
-
Re: Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
seanchai
No I don't think it does Sammi. I've lived in the US long enough and have plenty of American friends who are anti-gun or at least anti- the ease of
ability for anyone to assault/semi-auto type weaponry. The gun lobby and manufacturers and whackos like this guy just have bigger voices, more money, cry louder and create more paranoia through their media to enable to allow them to continue to buy weaponry which clearly is for more than personal home protection and hunting.
Which is a very British view, you do not need to preach to the converted. ;-)
-
Re: Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SammiValentine
Which is a very British view, you do not need to preach to the converted. ;-)
My point being, it may be a British view ... but there are plenty of Americans feel the same! :-)
-
Re: Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Token Williams-Black
I really can't find a reason why a civilian should have an automatic weapon.
Because I'm an AMERICAN goddamit, and I WANT them!
I hate sounding Anti-American (i love you guys) but, that does seem to be the prevailing attitude! :shrug
-
Re: Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jericho
Because I'm an AMERICAN goddamit, and I WANT them!
I hate sounding Anti-American (i love you guys) but, that does seem to be the prevailing attitude! :shrug
The problem isnt the guns themselves, its nutjob assholes aquiring them at a gun show or online and doing what that piece of dogshit did at that theater.
-
Re: Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bimale69
The problem isnt the guns themselves, its nutjob assholes aquiring them at a gun show or online and doing what that piece of dogshit did at that theater.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz .... it's the guns. There are always nutjobs in every country and the only time they get to killing sprees of this magnitude is when they get guns.
It's not just the nutjobs - it's a society that allows them to purchase these guns.
-
Re: Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bimale69
The problem isnt the guns themselves, its nutjob assholes aquiring them at a gun show or online and doing what that piece of dogshit did at that theater.
Nah, that dog don't hunt.
The problem is the weapons themselves.
There is no NEED whatsoever for civilians to own semi/automatic weaponry...You have them because you WANT them.
-
Re: Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
scopas66
Americans can own any gun they want with proper permits Its not the guns that are the problem. It's the fucking wacko's.I am so tired of the liberal bullshit!!!!!!!!!!!!
anyone can carry atomic bombs with proper permits , it's not the atomic bombs that are the problem , it's the fucking wacko's..........
-
Re: Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
onmyknees
"In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment protects the "collective" right of states to maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms. If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis." - Stephen P. Halbrook, "That Every Man Be Armed", 1984
"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson, proposal for Virginia's constitution of 1776.
With all due respect to Trish and others...there's little ambiguity in Jefferson's statement. I think I'll defer to his take on the issue .
But Jefferson's proposal, though it may reflect his views, is not written into the Constitution or its Amendments, and that is the text which forms the basis of the law.
Context here is critical for two reasons: 1) for 1791 it explains the precise concerns that existed at a time when the new America was justifiably anxious that its Revolution would be derailed and that British Imperialism would try to re-assert itself on its financially most lucrative Colonies; hence the resort to armed militias; and 2) Because contemporary America must find a way of 'keeping the Constitution alive' to the changes that have taken place since 1776 either by Amending the Constitution, or by interpreting its provisions in the context of 'today'.
The rift between Justice Scalia's judgement, and Justice Stevens' in Heller -vs- Dictrict of Columbia, suggests that one Justice believes there is a Constitutional right for all citizens to own firearms, while the other believes this right is partial and mediated through the concept of armed militias = ie, an individual -vs- collective right. If Stevens is right, then States have the right to impose limitations on the ability of citizens to obtain firearms; if Scalia is right then restrictions -other than those imposed on those who are mentally ill etc- could be interpreted as UnConstitutional.
BUT, if there is a contemporary opinion to be had, the changes that have taken place to firearms ought surely to be factored in. It is one thing for a patriotic American in 1791 to purchase a rifle to arm himself against another British invasion -which did indeed happen in 1812- but does this mean in 2012 any American believed at the time to be sane, needs and therefore should have the right to purchase automatic and semi-automatic assault weapons, 6,000 rounds of ammunition and all the rest of whatever else he wants in his private arsenal? And when the records show that 100% of these weapons are used against other Americans rather than an invading army, is it not time to subject the 2nd Amendment to what you Americans call a reality check?
-
Re: Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Prospero
How long will it take for the US to face up to the fact that it is the use of and ownership of guns that permits such mass killings to take place.
this will never happen , they will fight for the right to be killed....
it's much safer to be out in London in the middle of the night than most american cities , who cares why....
-
Re: Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!
Quote:
With all due respect to Trish and others...there's little ambiguity in Jefferson's statement. I think I'll defer to his take on the issue .
With all due respect, I never said Jefferson's views on the second amendment's raison d'etre were as ambiguous as they are in amendment itself. My point is that the only intent made explicit in the amendment is the intent that private citizens could use their own weapons when serving in state militia. Jefferson's other intentions never made it into the amendment. Perhaps because the other framers didn't agree with them. Perhaps because the framers thought one significant reason was sufficient. Perhaps stylistic brevity. It doesn't matter. Clearly the explicit intention is antiquated, as would be many of the original intentions behind the second amendment including many of Jefferson's. What matters is the history of interpretative precedents that lead to today's applications of the law. The precedents were based on arguments that through time refit the amendment to new circumstances, new technologies and newly perceived intentions. I agree with Stravros, the bare bones of the second amendment's intent are not as clear as Jefferson's personal views. However, I presume a lot more could be said about intent of the courts that interpreted the amendment through the years by studying the relevant cases and precedents. This temporal string of interpretations is what clarifies the law, not Jefferson's lone opinion nor the opinion of any group of founders.
Even though I believe our current guns laws are way to lax, I don't think the Constitution needs to be amended. I just think the court needs become the deliberative, rational, non-partisan body it was originally conceived to be.
-
Re: Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!
-
Re: Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!
Maybe all the people who hate guns so much should grow a fucking pair and just say what they SHOULD be saying if they're truly so afraid. ALL guns should be abolished. Take every gun on the planet and melt it down. Don't fight against something only to the point YOU personally feel comfortable with it, if your going to go down that road go all the damn way, not just until you get tired and feel like giving up. If you truly believe guns are so horrible, believe they are ALL equally as bad. Ragging on a specific section of gun users, in this case the private citizenry, is hypocritical and cowardly. If your going to campaign to end gun use then do just that, but have enough self respect to realize that it doesn't stop with Mr. & Mrs. Smith, until all the guns are gone from the world, those who wish to use them to do harm to others will find a way.
-
Re: Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dino Velvet
The guy definatley has alot of mental issues, looks alot more like a douchey facebook photo than a mugshot.
-
Re: Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
shaustin
Maybe all the people who hate guns so much should grow a fucking pair and just say what they SHOULD be saying if they're truly so afraid. ALL guns should be abolished. Take every gun on the planet and melt it down. Don't fight against something only to the point YOU personally feel comfortable with it, if your going to go down that road go all the damn way, not just until you get tired and feel like giving up. If you truly believe guns are so horrible, believe they are ALL equally as bad. Ragging on a specific section of gun users, in this case the private citizenry, is hypocritical and cowardly. If your going to campaign to end gun use then do just that, but have enough self respect to realize that it doesn't stop with Mr. & Mrs. Smith, until all the guns are gone from the world, those who wish to use them to do harm to others will find a way.
But you do have a Constitution and Laws, and these instruments have attempted to regulate the purchase of firearms because over the years it has been realised that some people are not trustworthy with them. You have a Standing Army paid for by taxes, just as you have police forces which means: you have dedicated, and armed organisations to guarantee your security. What you need to address are the causes of crime, because the relatively easy availability of firearms in the USA means gun-related crime is more common than it is, for example, in the UK. Instead of starting with the end result, try working on what causes crime. Limiting the availability of guns is one way of changing the profile of, and the fatal element in crime, that is what I think you are reluctant to engage with.
-
Re: Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stavros
But you do have a Constitution and Laws, and these instruments have attempted to regulate the purchase of firearms because over the years it has been realised that some people are not trustworthy with them. You have a Standing Army paid for by taxes, just as you have police forces which means: you have dedicated, and armed organisations to guarantee your security. What you need to address are the causes of crime, because the relatively easy availability of firearms in the USA means gun-related crime is more common than it is, for example, in the UK. Instead of starting with the end result, try working on what causes crime. Limiting the availability of guns is one way of changing the profile of, and the fatal element in crime, that is what I think you are reluctant to engage with.
That right there negates the majority of what followed. The CAUSE of a crime....to be honest, I don't recall a criminal ever answering the question "Why'd you do it?" with "Because I had a gun of course.". Holding a gun doesn't cause a person to suddenly want to commit a crime. The TRUE causes for crimes are much deeper in the majority of cases. Which is actually why I dislike all the gun opposition in this thread, the focus that SHOULD be placed on the real cause is all being thrown into a gun debate. It takes understanding, empathy, insight, and a mentality unclouded by hate in order to weed through the facts and find a true cause for a case such as this.
-
Re: Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!
Quote:
Maybe all the people who hate guns so much should grow a fucking pair and just say what they SHOULD be saying if they're truly so afraid. ALL guns should be abolished.
Don't hate guns. I own three hunting rifles. Not afraid either. It's the people who feel the need to carry that are afraid and insecure. But I do resent the increased degree of risk to my security that comes with hundreds of insecure assholes all around me carrying concealed firearms.
Quote:
I don't recall a criminal ever answering the question "Why'd you do it?" with "Because I had a gun of course.".
But that is one of the most common reasons given for murder, it just goes under the name of temporary insanity. "I was enraged...the gun was right there...so I shot her." It's also the reason for many accidental killings. "We were just messing around and the gun went off." You see, GUNS DO KILL PEOPLE.
-
Re: Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!
Can we all agree putting an instrument that causes mass damage in the hands of a person so damaged(perception or reality) is never sound strategy?
-
Re: Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dino Velvet
Can we all agree putting an instrument that causes mass damage in the hands of a person so damaged(perception or reality) is never sound strategy?
Yes, of course. But how does someone in a shop determine if the person who wants to buy is a mass murderer? Psychopaths by definition can conceal the simmering hatred and violence in them, and appear to be cool, calm, and collected. I think this is why the issue of regulation is more important than the debate on ownership in the USA. There are probably more people organised to promote or oppose gay marriage than are united for gun control. It is and has been one of the most intractable issues in the US that I can think of.
-
Re: Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
shaustin
That right there negates the majority of what followed. The CAUSE of a crime....to be honest, I don't recall a criminal ever answering the question "Why'd you do it?" with "Because I had a gun of course.". Holding a gun doesn't cause a person to suddenly want to commit a crime. The TRUE causes for crimes are much deeper in the majority of cases. Which is actually why I dislike all the gun opposition in this thread, the focus that SHOULD be placed on the real cause is all being thrown into a gun debate. It takes understanding, empathy, insight, and a mentality unclouded by hate in order to weed through the facts and find a true cause for a case such as this.
Can I suggest you look at the figures and explanations for the decline in gun-related crimes in Washington DC since the 1990s? A key cause of such crimes was the crack cocaine epidemic and turf wars among the dealers. One part of the decline was harsh policing; but another was the generation who watched their parents and elders getting shot when zonked out of their brains who decided to 'just say no' -thus the market for crack cocaine declined, and with it the gun-related crime: cause and effect. Has gun ownership in Washington DC declined? I don't know, but its use in crime does seem to have.
-
Re: Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
trish
But that is one of the most common reasons given for murder, it just goes under the name of temporary insanity. "I was enraged...the gun was right there...so I shot her." It's also the reason for many accidental killings. "We were just messing around and the gun went off." You see, GUNS DO KILL PEOPLE.
Accidents happen, if you mess around with ANY potentially lethal device the results are gonna be the same. The route problem right there is uneducated stupidity. If your going to have a weapon in your home, you secure it, and if you have children, you inform them of the severity that comes with such an ownership. There should never be an excuse such as "We were messing around with a loaded weapon.", not because if the gun was never there it wouldn't have happened, but because the owner and/or the person doing the fooling around obviously failed in life as inteligent and responsible human beings.
As for crimes of passion and temporary insanity, once again, I agree that in a number of cases there would be times when the ease of using a firearm would increase the chances of the crime to be commited, but it's impossible to say for sure that in the majority of such instances a person would not turn to a less effective weapon if they were already at the point to take another's life. And to me, the vast majority of such plea's are thinly veiled attempts to disregard personal liablity. People ALLOW themselves to be taken away by rage and fear and other emotions in most of those cases. Just because you allow your mind to act instead of think, doesn't mean you were incapable of thought. In times of stress and turmoil, people tend to give in and block out judgement. A choice made subconciously is still a decision reached upon by the individual, it is a part of them, not some temporary madness that infected them and then left.
-
Re: Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stavros
Yes, of course. But how does someone in a shop determine if the person who wants to buy is a mass murderer? Psychopaths by definition can conceal the simmering hatred and violence in them, and appear to be cool, calm, and collected. I think this is why the issue of regulation is more important than the debate on ownership in the USA. There are probably more people organised to promote or oppose gay marriage than are united for gun control. It is and has been one of the most intractable issues in the US that I can think of.
That's not so easy. Looking for a little common ground first in this discussion. There is no simple answer.
People that work in gun shops are not the best judges of character either.
-
Re: Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!
Maybe the problem is how we deal with, or ignore dealing with, mental illness in the U.S.
The gunman who shot at Rep. Giffords in Tuscon, AZ, the gunman who shot up Virginia Tech, and this guy were all mentally ill. (And this guy even went to a Medical School, which all have Psychiatrists on staff.)
Everybody realized these men were troubled. They all should have been under psychiatric care. For their own good. Gun Permits are not an absolute right, even in the most 'gun friendly' parts of the U.S. They are never given to people who are mentally ill. The most devout 'gun advocates' don't think mentally ill people should possess firearms.
So why not create a better system to report mentally ill people so they can't get gun licenses? Create some kind of 'psychiatric hold' that shows up on the background check. Or to pull the permit from somebody who already has one.
Should
-
Re: Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stavros
Can I suggest you look at the figures and explanations for the decline in gun-related crimes in Washington DC since the 1990s? A key cause of such crimes was the crack cocaine epidemic and turf wars among the dealers. One part of the decline was harsh policing; but another was the generation who watched their parents and elders getting shot when zonked out of their brains who decided to 'just say no' -thus the market for crack cocaine declined, and with it the gun-related crime: cause and effect. Has gun ownership in Washington DC declined? I don't know, but its use in crime does seem to have.
That's actually kind of along the lines of what I was trying to point out. In that situation the crack is the actual cause of the gun crime, not the guns themselves. If all the energy that was focused by the citizens and the police was on getting rid of guns and not the crack, the true cause behind the crime would still be prevailent.
-
Re: Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!
Quote:
Accidents happen, if you mess around with ANY potentially lethal device the results are gonna be the same.
"OH NO,We were just messing around and I accidentally stabbed my buddy through the heart with a Bowie knife. I didn't know it was loaded!!" Yeah, right.
Quote:
As for crimes of passion and temporary insanity, once again, I agree that in a number of cases there would be times when the ease of using a firearm would increase the chances of the crime to be commited
I would add the adjective, "effectively". The presence of a firearm not only increases the chance that a crime of passion will be committed but increases the chances the it will be committed effectively and more likely to result in murder rather than battery.
