Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
MRB_Doom

Police: Shooting at Colorado movie theater

Recommended Posts

No, people in this thread are afraid of inanimate objects under the false assumption that "guns kill people". The last time I checked, a gun never came to life and shot somebody.

I can run somebody over or be fatally hit every time I step into my car. I don't say that cars should be banned or regulated. Nor the same with knives, power tools, or bricks.

A distrust in firearms also usually means a increased trust in police. Funny thing when the cops don't have any legal obligation to protect you - look up Warren v. District of Columbia and Hartzler v. City of San Jose for evidence of that. Have fun being naive.

Share this post


Link to post
Mr. Freeze said:

I can run somebody over or be fatally hit every time I step into my car. I don't say that cars should be banned or regulated.


Cars are actually banned in some areas and regulated everywhere. There are a ton of regulations about cars and driving. Mandatory insurance, driving license, an entire branch of police force just for traffic control, etc.

And guns are weapons. They are designed to hurt and kill; it is their entire point. Sure, they don't kill by themselves, but you're not going to make a lot of victims if you go on a rampage with a tea cozy instead of a gun. There are other possible tools for mass murder, such as explosives or poison, but they are less reliable (you don't know if your bomb is going to be a dud after all, and poison is generally slow). Guns are the fastest and most reliable way for an average civilian without access to military materiel to kill a lot of people indiscriminately.

Share this post


Link to post

If gun laws prevent killing sprees, perhaps somebody can tell me all about how criminals follow laws to begin with. That sign at the theater telling people to leave their guns out of their establishment sure did a good job of protecting people and keeping guns out, now didn't it?

Fun fact: There was another shooting in Aurora, Colorado. Of course nobody knows about it, because it's where the perpetrator shot somebody, and then got killed immediately by somebody else with a gun.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/12175-two-aurora-shootings-one-widely-known-the-other-ignored

Not to mention those two burglars at that internet cafe that had the whole thing back fire on them when that 71 year old guy pulled out his .380.

Just about anytime a burglary or potential mass murder starts and gets defused by a citizen who carried a gun, the media does a damn fine job of making sure nobody knows about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Gez said:

And guns are weapons. They are designed to hurt and kill; it is their entire point.

Not to a (non-violent, non-dangerous) gun fan. I refuse to believe that everyone who owns a gun has also shot another human being with it, even in self-defence. Or has any desire to.

And what about historical weapons such as swords and bows and lances? There's plenty of contemporary reasons to own one or several of these too, besides doing with them what they were originally intended for and are still capable of doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Maes said:

This leads to people like Belial "preferring" armed criminals -even if illegally- to legally armed civilians, who could -in his logic- lash out without any self-control or restraint, as opposed to the carefully planning criminals who "play by the rules"...whatever these might be.

Talking out of your ass again, eh?

Oh well, your strawman will keep the fire going, I'm sure.

Share this post


Link to post
DoomUK said:

Not to a (non-violent, non-dangerous) gun fan. I refuse to believe that everyone who owns a gun has also shot another human being with it, even in self-defence. Or has any desire to.


Reminds me of a Wizard of Id strip (can't find it, sadly, dialogue only:)

Rodney to Bartender: I can't understand how someone who runs a bar can totally abstain from drinking.
Bartender to Rodney: Well, you too have a sword, don't you?

Share this post


Link to post

I think people are afraid of average citizens owning assault rifles, rather than criminals, is becasue they are the one one who go on random killing sprees when pushed over the edge. Criminals have objectives and certain people they wish to eliminate; it's a cruel business. Mass killings go on all the time in the crime world, but it doesn't effect white suburban Americans like Columbine or this incident has. And when you do hear about multiple crime related deaths, it really comes off as anecdotal, but when you look back at the famous killing sprees, they involve well off, often educated individuals who found weapons with relative ease.

Me, personally, I don't think it can ever be possible to set tighter gun laws in America. Weapons rights are too deeply engrained in America's values. It's easy for us Canadians and Europeans to envision a society without automatic weapons, but that's becasue we've never lived in such a liberal society when dealing with firearms.

Having tighter gun control would also allow police greater powers when dealing with monitoring people who own weapons they deem dangerous. You're creating a greater police state in the long run. Also, let's not forget the black market. It's funny how progressives are aware that the drug trade can be eliminated easily by liberating drug laws, but fail to see the fact that they would be creating a similar scenario with weapons trade if harsher laws were created.

The only way to restrict automatic weapons is if society deems them unfit naturally. You can't force it on the people without additional liberties being suppressed, or at a risk of further retaliation by citizens.

Share this post


Link to post

Hmm...but gun ownership & 2nd Amendment rights aside, isn't the possession of automatic weapons outlawed even in the USA, since, well, forever?

Semi-auto != full-auto, and it's highly illegal to convert weapons. Even in such a liberal gun ownership environment there are some lines that the State won't tolerate, e.g. possession of "military grade" weapons and ammo, and in general, allowing private citizens, criminals or other potential adversaries to be better armed than what Law Enforcement or even the Armed Forces can field on average.

Ironically, it has happened a lot in the past (e.g. Indians with repeating Winchester rifles vs Custer's muzzle-loading regiment, Gangsters in the Roaring Twenties with Tommy Guns, modern street gangs with Uzis and AK-47s and even RPGs etc.)

Of course, some distinctions might be too thin. E.g. this cartridge is legal to own. Call the very same cartridge something different and Hey Presto, it's "military grade" and illegal to own.

Others, are simply common sense. Owning a "full auto" Tommy Gun in .45 ACP or a Sten SMG could be barely acceptable (hey, historical weapon, used by your grandpa in WW II to kill Nazis!), but owning a .50 BMG full-auto machine gun... unless you have VERY serious problems in your 'hood.

Share this post


Link to post
Gez said:

And guns are weapons. They are designed to hurt and kill; it is their entire point.


I guess that explains what's going on here:

Share this post


Link to post
Craigs said:

I guess that explains what's going on here:

No Craigs they're in the minority most people use guns to shoot other people with them

Share this post


Link to post
Mike.Reiner said:

If gun laws prevent killing sprees, perhaps somebody can tell me all about how criminals follow laws to begin with. That sign at the theater telling people to leave their guns out of their establishment sure did a good job of protecting people and keeping guns out, now didn't it?

Fun fact: There was another shooting in Aurora, Colorado. Of course nobody knows about it, because it's where the perpetrator shot somebody, and then got killed immediately by somebody else with a gun.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/12175-two-aurora-shootings-one-widely-known-the-other-ignored

Not to mention those two burglars at that internet cafe that had the whole thing back fire on them when that 71 year old guy pulled out his .380.

Just about anytime a burglary or potential mass murder starts and gets defused by a citizen who carried a gun, the media does a damn fine job of making sure nobody knows about it.

I'm going to be an atypical Internet arguer, and agree that I see your point :-/ I understand now: using them to stop other criminals from doing their spree.

But I'm still afraid of criminal impulses. What if I do possess a pistol, and in a fit of anger, I decide to use it to coerce people who are making too much fun of me? So in a way I still don't agree heh :) I hate the idea of solving arguments at gunpoint, which can very well happen if everyone is armed.

Share this post


Link to post
DoomUK said:

No Craigs they're in the minority most people use guns to shoot other people with them


[citation needed]

What about hunters or weekend plinkers? I bet most (legally) purchased guns get used for hunting, sport or just plinking. Most illegally obtained ones OTOH....

printz said:

What if I do possess a pistol, and in a fit of anger, I decide to use it to coerce people who are making too much fun of me?


Tough luck: you'll get practically no sympathy, especially if you were wronged by a physically superior person or multiple -but unarmed-attackers. Somehow everybody will feel that you "violated the natural order of things" by reversing the odds and you'll just fuel those saying that guns should be outlawed exactly because they allow weaklings like you to do that.

OTOH, if you are 2m tall and weigh 150 kg and beat somebody to a pulp with your bare hands on the very same fit of anger, you'll be treated with a silk glove and feelings of awe. Let alone that probably none would dare make fun of you in the first place, if you really were like that...

Share this post


Link to post
Maes said:

[citation needed]

What about hunters or weekend plinkers? I bet most (legally) purchased guns get used for hunting, sport or just plinking. Most illegally obtained ones OTOH....

You haven't read anything I've said in this thread, huh? I'm on the pro-gun side of the debate and I'm quite aware of all the uses for them besides killing people.

Share this post


Link to post
DoomUK said:

You haven't read anything I've said in this thread, huh? I'm on the pro-gun side of the debate and I'm quite aware of all the uses for them besides killing people.


You must have made a very convincingly un-ironic sounding comment then.

Share this post


Link to post
printz said:

I hate the idea of solving arguments at gunpoint, which can very well happen if everyone is armed.

You still haven't explained why a machete is any less intimidating when some psychopath is threatening to cut your arms off with it.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm less successful in stopping and puppet-controlling a person by using a knife, than by using a pistol. It's about the range.

Share this post


Link to post
printz said:

I'm less successful in stopping and puppet-controlling a person by using a knife, than by using a pistol. It's about the range.


I've seen martial arts experts that you really don't want to start "dancing" anywhere near you and are just as effective at keeping you at bay, simply because you won't be able to block a single blow from them and can weaken/hurt you at will with their bare hands. Then again....a gun is easier than attaining mastery at that level ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
printz said:

I'm less successful in stopping and puppet-controlling a person by using a knife, than by using a pistol. It's about the range.

So what if you are able to run faster than he can? Or what happens if you have an accomplice?

Share this post


Link to post

I can't speak for Americans, but even in Canada it's easy enough to get semi-automatic assault rifles, combat shotguns, armour-piercing ammo, etc. Converting weapons to automatic fire or the ability to shoot more than between 5 or 30 rounds (depending on weapon) is illegal, but so easy to do that when a zombie apocalypse happens there's gonna be a shitload of Canadians with firepower to fight them off.

A lack of guns won't stop the really crazy people. They don't have guns everywhere in Japan, but two weeks before I visited, a guy in Akihabara stole a truck, rammed it into a crowd, jumped out and started stabbing people. He managed to kill 17. The lack of guns does prevent more mundane shootings and the sorts of gun accidents caused by stupid idiots and young children.

I like guns. Idiots who get their friends and children killed shouldn't be permitted anywhere near them, however.

Share this post


Link to post
Craigs said:

I guess that explains what's going on here:

People have turned combat disciplines into sports since the dawn of time. Same for archery, fencing, boxing, etc. Doesn't change much. A weapon is still a weapon.

About hunting: yeah, normally hunters don't use their rifles to kill people, but animals. It's still killing, so it's still part of their primary purpose.

Mike.Reiner said:

If gun laws prevent killing sprees, perhaps somebody can tell me all about how criminals follow laws to begin with.

It's not about criminals following laws, it's about ease of availability.

If something is easily available, it's easily available to everyone, including criminals. If it isn't easily available, then it also easily available for criminals. So well-connected mafia thugs and obsessive planners like Breivik will still have firearms, but the average burglar won't. The table here is interesting. Certainly, it shows that banning guns, in itself, is not a guarantee, given how some countries where they are officially illegal still have a high proportion of homicide by firearms and a high rate of homicide. But they're countries like Zimbabwe, Costa Rica, or Belarus... And other countries allow citizens to have guns but they still have relatively low values for gun violence, such as England or Spain. However, there is certainly a problem in the USA, since they have high rates of homicide by firearms.

Share this post


Link to post
Gez said:

However, there is certainly a problem in the USA, since they have high rates of homicide by firearms.


Where's myk when you need him? We can't disregard the USA's particular socio-economical conditions and problems that lead to those high rates!

Share this post


Link to post
Gez said:

People have turned combat disciplines into sports since the dawn of time. Same for archery, fencing, boxing, etc. Doesn't change much. A weapon is still a weapon.


Except it voids your argument that their only point is to hurt and kill.

Share this post


Link to post
Craigs said:

Except it voids your argument that their only point is to hurt and kill.


I'm not going to get caught up in this argument, but I did want to point out that it doesn't. People have used weapons as implements of recreation since the dawn of time. That doesn't stop them from still being weapons. You're arguing semantics rather than the actual point that a weapon is made to hurt or kill.

That's my piece. Have at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Membrain said:

I'm not going to get caught up in this argument, but I did want to point out that it doesn't. People have used weapons as implements of recreation since the dawn of time. That doesn't stop them from still being weapons. You're arguing semantics rather than the actual point that a weapon is made to hurt or kill.

That's my piece. Have at it.


http://www.bushmaster.com/catalog_competition_index.asp

Good luck finding somewhere in the catalog where they talk up the stopping power of these rifles. Just because they can used as weapons doesn't mean they were designed to be weapons.

Share this post


Link to post

Maes said:
That's what happens in most EU countries and yet, gun crime isn't exactly zero, far from it.

DoomUK said:
The point is that, while no one with half a brain could seriously contend with that statement, ridding the world of guns wouldn't stop psychotic people from doing terrible things.

Satyr000 said:
Gun control won't stop things like this in the first place. If someone wants a gun bad enough they will find a way to get it.

All these quotes just say something like "what's the point of medicine? it doesn't get rid of disease!"

DoomUK said:
Don't you think people's behaviour is what needs focus, and not what they're holding in their hands?

Why would you want to only focus on one and not the other? "Behavior" is monitored as well. Gun control itself is part of behavior management. Although in some ways I'd say "other aspects of behavior" need some extra work in general, but it's not incompatible with gun control, which itself is inevitable in different degrees.

Satyr000 said:
On top of that there are entire towns and villages across the world where two warring factions have been stripped of firearms and they continued to fight.You take away there guns and a few days later the people are fighting in the street using everything from a kitchen knifes, 2x4's, hammers to pitchforks. The fighting just keeps going no matter what the people in power do.

Oh, I get it, using pencils and belts or nukes and mustard gas is the same because it's all fighting!

Maes said:
This leads to people like Belial "preferring" armed criminals -even if illegally- to legally armed civilians, who could -in his logic- lash out without any self-control or restraint, as opposed to the carefully planning criminals who "play by the rules"...whatever these might be.

Preferring one over the other? What makes you think they'd go away if civilians were armed? Granted, they'd likely pick more on all the ones that have weaker weapons or are less alert, but armed criminals wouldn't be going anywhere. They'd need their guns even more. Stealing a place with a fake gun when the owners aren't armed may be possible, but you need something real and heavier to intimidate or repel armed people. In most places, for example, banks aren't exactly without armed defense and bank robbers aren't particularly unarmed, operating in heavily armed gangs unless they can tunnel into the bank or something unusual.

Quast said:
Gun ownership in the united states is not only very deeply tied to a sense of national identity and national history, but it's very much tied to familial identity. The vast majority of gun owners in the united states are not the crazies, they are not liquor store robbing gang members but normal people. Many of which, myself included, have seen firearms passed down 4 or 5 generations or more. It might seem like a minor point, but the symbolic and ritual aspects of it are more meaningful than people might give it credit for.

There's both a habit of keeping guns and a certain glorification of violence, competition and war. I would say that in context the former contributes in a mostly passive way to the latter. You guys hold guns in a sort of social and historical fetish which is loudly defended while your military blows towelheads sky high and your cops get rough on misfits.

flubbernugget said:
Just because they can used as weapons doesn't mean they were designed to be weapons.

That's still a gun, and guns have always been weapons. It's just that that model was geared to a derivative of gun use, shooting competitions. A counterargument is perhaps that many early weapons were farming tools or working instruments. Some were used to till the earth... others at most to grind grain or kill plants :p

Share this post


Link to post
myk said:

Oh, I get it, using pencils and belts or nukes and mustard gas is the same because it's all fighting!


It kinda is the same. The point is if people have a strong enough urge to kill they will kill. If the gunman in the movie theater had no access to guns but had a knife instead do you think he would have just went home?

Share this post


Link to post
flubbernugget said:

It kinda is the same. The point is if people have a strong enough urge to kill they will kill. If the gunman in the movie theater had no access to guns but had a knife instead do you think he would have just went home?


Chances are he wouldn't have. Humans have been killing one another since the dawn of time. There have large scale wars and small scale conflicts long before the invention of firearms. Really all firearms have done is provided a new way for humans to kill one another. If history is any indicator even if we where to take away guns, people wouldn't stop killing people. The next attack like this might just be an individual with a fire axe if guns where taken away.

Share this post


Link to post

Okay, let's legalize all military arms and toxic weapons then!

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×