By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Shooting at Batman Premiere - 12 dead / Your opinions on gun laws

Cueil said:
bouzane said:
MessiaH said:
bouzane said:
 


You do realize that you can make your own bullets right? No offense but your suggestions would prove to be largely inelegant, ineffective and punishing to many law abiding citizens. This is the opposite of what we need to do to address the issue.

 

Edit: Also, this would be the definition of a big, obtrusive nanny-state government over stepping its bounds.

I fully realize it is not an elegant approach. I am just reciting something that was used in stand up comedy. I obviously haven't really looked into it to see the benefits (if any) or problems that can arise. I am not saying it should be done. Just something funny I remembered hearing and thought the subject was appropriate to bring up. 

But I do think that there is no need to be able to purchase fully automatic weapons and shotguns and what not. Civilians use weapons for hunting and self-defense. So why don't they just allow the sale of hand guns and hunting rifles. It won't stop crimes, but it will reduce the casualties.


Why prohibit shotguns and allow handguns? For home defense, a shotgun is actually ideal because the pellets are much less likely to pose a threat to your neighbors than a high powered rifle cartridge. Personally, I am of the firm belief that gun bans are both useless in preventing crime and too restrictive upon the civilian population. I myself want rifles but not for hunting or self-defense purposes. I want to do some sport shooting but the laws here (Canada) are just too much to deal with. I think that once military and police armaments become adequate, we should legalize fully-automatic firearms. I'd work towards acquiring the necessary licenses immediately and begin collecting them.


high powered rifel for hunting larger game... moose... bison...ect. A hand gun is good because it's easier to store in a easy to access place.


I wasn't saying that rifles and handguns don't have their purposes. I was simply pointing out the fact that a shotgun ban would be ludicrous considering the fact that they are among the most legitimately useful guns out there.



Around the Network
MessiaH said:
mitlar37 said:
This guy had bombs set in his apt. Just like Timothy McVeigh, lack of guns wouldn't have stopped him - nuff said. After the Luby's massacre in the '80s Texas passed the concealed weapons law and nothing on that scale has happened here since. We Texans grow up using guns and know how to use them. I don't know why all you non-americans are posting telling us how we should do stuff - worry about your own country and quit ragging on the U.S.

No one is ragging man. This is a debate worth discussing. Also, more people in the US need to worry about the situation at hand. It's pretty serious, but people are comfortable in their lives until the shit hits their very own ceiling fan...

Safty isn't worth the loss of freedom IMHO



bouzane said:
Cueil said:
bouzane said:
MessiaH said:
bouzane said:
 


You do realize that you can make your own bullets right? No offense but your suggestions would prove to be largely inelegant, ineffective and punishing to many law abiding citizens. This is the opposite of what we need to do to address the issue.

 

Edit: Also, this would be the definition of a big, obtrusive nanny-state government over stepping its bounds.

I fully realize it is not an elegant approach. I am just reciting something that was used in stand up comedy. I obviously haven't really looked into it to see the benefits (if any) or problems that can arise. I am not saying it should be done. Just something funny I remembered hearing and thought the subject was appropriate to bring up. 

But I do think that there is no need to be able to purchase fully automatic weapons and shotguns and what not. Civilians use weapons for hunting and self-defense. So why don't they just allow the sale of hand guns and hunting rifles. It won't stop crimes, but it will reduce the casualties.


Why prohibit shotguns and allow handguns? For home defense, a shotgun is actually ideal because the pellets are much less likely to pose a threat to your neighbors than a high powered rifle cartridge. Personally, I am of the firm belief that gun bans are both useless in preventing crime and too restrictive upon the civilian population. I myself want rifles but not for hunting or self-defense purposes. I want to do some sport shooting but the laws here (Canada) are just too much to deal with. I think that once military and police armaments become adequate, we should legalize fully-automatic firearms. I'd work towards acquiring the necessary licenses immediately and begin collecting them.


high powered rifel for hunting larger game... moose... bison...ect. A hand gun is good because it's easier to store in a easy to access place.


I wasn't saying that rifles and handguns don't have their purposes. I was simply pointing out the fact that a shotgun ban would be ludicrous considering the fact that they are among the most legitimately useful guns out there.

Agreed... the shotgun is a great home protection weapon and doesn't nessarily require great aim in order to get rid of the threat of a intruder. I think it's funny that if you kill a fool for breaking in it's OK... but if he breaks his leg stealing your crap he can sue.



I never really understood the idea of banning guns after a masscre like this, the fact he was able to aquire the guns saved many lives. If he was unable to purchase or find guns he would have resorted to other means to kill. It would not be that hard to rent a large truck and fill the back with gas and other homemade explosives and drive it to the front of a Wal-Mart on black friday. Or he could blow it up in front of some school or sporting event.



radishhead said:

http://www.kctv5.com/story/19071381/shooting-at-theater-during-batman-premiere-in-colorado

I just turned on the news and I saw this incident - apparently it's the worst in the USA since a school shooting many years ago (I think), so it's extremely saddening.

Aside from just reporting the story however (which I assume American users know about already), I wondered what your opinions were regarding gun laws. It's impossible to deny that the chances of such a tragedy happening would be reduced if ownership of a gun is illegal without a license (assuming these licenses were very difficult to get, and wouldn't allow a civilian to carry one in public). Is the idea of possessing a gun an outdated idea, or is it still significant in the modern world?

No its not impossibe to to deny your assertion that the chances of such a tragedy would be reduced if ownership of a gun is illegal. I'll break it down for you pont by point.

1. Here are some incidents from around the world (many of teh countries have much strciter gun laws than the US):

2011 Anders Breivik went on a rampage that left 77 dead in Norway (some of the toughest gun laws anywhere)

2011 Nordine Amrani murdered seven in Belgium.

2011 Slovakian man killed 7 in a Netherlands shopping mall.

2010 52-year-old British taxi driver named Derrick Bird butchered 12 and injured 11 others.

2009 17-year-old Tim Kretschmer walked into a German elementary school and killed 15 people

2009 Ibrahim Shkupolli stabbed and killed his ex-girlfriend, then went on to a shopping mall in Finland to kill four others.

2008 A 22-year old culinary arts student walked into a school and killed 10 people in Finland.

2001 Swiss kid slaughtered 14 at the parliament in Zug.

2000 Birmingham, England man who killed three.

1996  23-year-old Australian surfer named Martin Bryant, shot 35 people "just because he felt like it."

...... there are many, many more.

2. This guy's apartment was wired with homemade grenades and mortar like explosives. Had he not had access to guns he could have just as easily exploded himself (happens all the time in the middle east) or tossed those grenades into the crowd doing just as much damage. We would have to ban any and every substance known that could be used to create these explosives. It is already illegal to build, own or use most explosives without a license and the proper oversight etc. So it didn't stop him anymore than gun laws would have stopped the shootings.

3. There was only one person in that theater who had a gun.... James Holmes. Had another legitimate movie goer had a gun or a few had guns someone could have shot him and stop him from killing as many as he had. When seconds count the police (who carry guns) are just minutes away. And even if it is true the police showed up in 90 or so seconds somone could have stopped him in less than 30. Think of the lives that could have been saved.

4. Even if we went with making it tough to get guns by ovrerly restrictive licensing (many cities here already have very restrictive gun laws) it would not have served as a deterent in this case at all. The guy was by all accounts a law abiding citizen with an advanced degree (and working on his PHD) so he would have most likely been allowed to purchase a gun on his merits alone. Also making it illegal to carry guns in public will not deter anyone who is willing to break the law (especially by commiting mass murder) from taking his/her weapon out into the public space.

The idea of possessing a gun will never be outdated. The idea of banning guns is outdated. We are always so busy trying to ban inatimate objects that we forget about the human aspect of the problem. All banning guns will do (and has done) is make the average citizen prey to criminals who care nothing for their rights to be safe and secure in their person and propety.



Around the Network
Cueil said:
bouzane said:
Cueil said:
bouzane said:
MessiaH said:
bouzane said:
 


You do realize that you can make your own bullets right? No offense but your suggestions would prove to be largely inelegant, ineffective and punishing to many law abiding citizens. This is the opposite of what we need to do to address the issue.

 

Edit: Also, this would be the definition of a big, obtrusive nanny-state government over stepping its bounds.

I fully realize it is not an elegant approach. I am just reciting something that was used in stand up comedy. I obviously haven't really looked into it to see the benefits (if any) or problems that can arise. I am not saying it should be done. Just something funny I remembered hearing and thought the subject was appropriate to bring up. 

But I do think that there is no need to be able to purchase fully automatic weapons and shotguns and what not. Civilians use weapons for hunting and self-defense. So why don't they just allow the sale of hand guns and hunting rifles. It won't stop crimes, but it will reduce the casualties.


Why prohibit shotguns and allow handguns? For home defense, a shotgun is actually ideal because the pellets are much less likely to pose a threat to your neighbors than a high powered rifle cartridge. Personally, I am of the firm belief that gun bans are both useless in preventing crime and too restrictive upon the civilian population. I myself want rifles but not for hunting or self-defense purposes. I want to do some sport shooting but the laws here (Canada) are just too much to deal with. I think that once military and police armaments become adequate, we should legalize fully-automatic firearms. I'd work towards acquiring the necessary licenses immediately and begin collecting them.


high powered rifel for hunting larger game... moose... bison...ect. A hand gun is good because it's easier to store in a easy to access place.


I wasn't saying that rifles and handguns don't have their purposes. I was simply pointing out the fact that a shotgun ban would be ludicrous considering the fact that they are among the most legitimately useful guns out there.

Agreed... the shotgun is a great home protection weapon and doesn't nessarily require great aim in order to get rid of the threat of a intruder. I think it's funny that if you kill a fool for breaking in it's OK... but if he breaks his leg stealing your crap he can sue.


SAY IT AIN'T SO!!!! Is that true?! He can sue?! I can't believe someone would win such a case. But I have heard and seen crazier in my life!



yum123 said:
Marks said:
If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

No amount of gun control would have stopped this, but maybe with less gun control an armed law-abiding citizen in the theatre could have stopped this and minimalized casualties. The police are there to bag and tag bodies and arrest the criminal after the fact, not to prevent crime.

that is such a narrow minded view. what a load of crap. look at most countries where guns are illegal, there are far far fewer gun murders in those countries compared to the usa. If they outlawed guns you wouldnt be able to find them so easily in shops. also It would slowly seep out of their culture. thats the problem with usa guns are a part of there culture

No, actually the view that gun control will stop gun crime is narrow minded. There are more than enough statistics in the US that show less gun control actually lowers crime. Thousands of citizens stop crimes each year with legally purchased guns. And do you really think gun control will stop a well planned out murder like this, Columbine, etc. that have had months, if not years, of planning? It was going to happen one way or another. 



@-CraZed-

Here's a fun fact about explosives. If a building has proper ventilation I can utterly level it with nothing more than a box, some springs, a length of wire, a battery and corn starch. It is literally impossible to outlaw every explosive substance.



bouzane said:
@-CraZed-

Here's a fun fact about explosives. If a building has proper ventilation I can utterly level it with nothing more than a box, some springs, a length of wire, a battery and corn starch. It is literally impossible to outlaw every explosive substance.


Obviously there is no way to ban every explosive substance I was just trying to make a point there.... but thank you for the fun fact. Just please don't go leveling any buildings ;p



-CraZed- said:

3. There was only one person in that theater who had a gun.... James Holmes. Had another legitimate movie goer had a gun or a few had guns someone could have shot him and stop him from killing as many as he had. When seconds count the police (who carry guns) are just minutes away. And even if it is true the police showed up in 90 or so seconds somone could have stopped him in less than 30. Think of the lives that could have been saved.

The idea of possessing a gun will never be outdated. The idea of banning guns is outdated. We are always so busy trying to ban inatimate objects that we forget about the human aspect of the problem. All banning guns will do (and has done) is make the average citizen prey to criminals who care nothing for their rights to be safe and secure in their person and propety.

To your point #3, I think if other people had guns they could have accidentally shot other civilians. Remember that this happened in a dark theater, smoke bombs were detonated, the murderer was wearing full body armor from head to toe, and people were running all over the place in a frenzy. So if he was shot at, it would not have done anything, he was wearing armor. And chances are, amidst the chaos, the people with guns would have accidentally shot other people trying to run away. 

The idea of possessing a gun became outdated since the wild west was over. People are so bound by the Constitution that was written in the 1700's when times were radically different. There is no shame in admitting that there is room for amendments to be made. I am not saying "ban guns", but clearly the status quo is NOT working. People are getting killed in alarmingly high numbers. People are prone to violence for some odd disgusting reason. People are scared. And that is why they want a gun by their bed-side. No doubt, something needs to be done, what that is should be open for discussion and reasoning.