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

MessiaH on 25 July 2012
Viper1 said:
MessiaH said:

Better yet, as per Chris Rock's stand-up comedy, he says something along the lines of keep your guns laws in place, just raise the price of bullets. If each bullet costs $5,000, then no one will walk into a theater and just spray them all over the place. He said it as a joke many years ago, but it is actually a smart soultion, although there will never be the day when a bullet costs that much, but y'know what I mean.


I remember watching that and laughing my ass off.   His jokes were true IF you could find a means to charge $5,000 per bullet but unfortunately that's not something Congress would ever be able to mandate (nor should they since price madates on bullets would lead to a whole debate about what else they could price mandate).

Agreed!



Around the Network
MessiaH on 25 July 2012
Cueil said:
MessiaH said:
Viper1 said:
MessiaH said:

Viper, I understand your logic and how you are thinking. Naturally, if criminals know we have guns, they are less inclined to commit crimes. But that argument has been debunked by research. USA, which allows people to have guns (not in all states) has the HIGHEST number of homocides through the use of guns compared to other countries that don't have guns. 

For example, USA has over 8,000 gun murders per year. Canada has only 200. UK has only 60. Japan has 2 (they had 18 one year which was regarded as insane and such a high number). Now you will tell me that the US has a bigger population than other countries and so naturally it will have more murders. But let us do simple maths. US has approximately 300million people, Canada has about 30 million (I am rounding to make things easier). So the US has 10 times more people. Multiply the gun murders in Canada by 10, that is 200x10 = 2000 murders by guns. That is still a QUARTER of the number of murders in the US. 

The facts are clear, if you allow people to have guns, people will get killed. I mean, look at this guy. No one suspected a thing out of him. He is a graduate student of neurosciences. I saw him hold presentations in class, he looked like a totally normal kid, then BAM. he goes out and slaughters all these people. He didn't think twice whether he would be gunned down or not. Also, accidental killings happen when people have guns. So for instance, apparently the people at the theater that got shot at, over 40% of them went out and bought a gun for protection so that would never happen again. But that is not the right thing to do, because if the situation was repeated but the crowd had a bunch of guns, people would still be dead, A) because the murderer was wearing full anti-ballistic body armor and would not have been killed with the shots fired his way, and B) amidst the smoke grenades, the darkness in the theater, and the chaos and madness going on in there, I guarantee you those innocents with guns would have accidentally shot another innocent bystander as they could not see shit. Probably more people would have died in this alternate gun-toting scenario.

So no. Just because people are allowed to have guns, does not mean that crimes will stop. It has been proven year over year that this is not the case simply by numbers and simple research, and there has been no valid argument to prove that murders would decrease. But many Americans seem to think that the Constitution was written by a God and cannot be altered and has to be followed word by word, or else....! It is crazy to think that! The Constitution was written in the 1700's man!!! What they were going through back then was different to what we are living today. There was no such thing as a full fledged police force back then, people were being invaded by the British back then, guns were simple and can shoot 1 bullet at a time after a lengthy reload process (unlike fully automatic weapons that slice through scores of people now like that low life asshole did in the theater).

Those mass shootings, as far as I know, are typically done by someone with ZERO criminal background. They are the "law abiding citizens" you speak off that go nuts and go on mass murders. Dude, if you lose it, you've fuckin lost it. You are not thinking rationally anymore, you are not thinking "oh my, will they shoot me if i do this?!" no! you are thinking "ok, they have guns, so i gotta shoot them all real fast and make sure they dont have a chance to reataliate!" Also, some of these mass murderes turn the gun on themselves and suicide, so they don't give a fuck about someone in the crowd having a gun.

There is no reason for Americans to turn a blind eye to this and STILL after all the evidence put in front of them deny that aboloshing guns would reduce gun murders. There is no room for ignorance in the 21st century! People need to wisen up, see the truth, and rise! Otherwise, you might be present in the next big shooting if the status quo is not changed.

I was going to counterpoint a lot of your post but that will lead to a very cluttered and hard to follow debate.

So instead, I'm going to leave a link to a pdf file.  I hope that you'll take a few minutes to read it with an open mind.  It has a lot of answers to the myths of gun crime in the US and the rest of the world and it's all backed up by official sources.  It's 107 pages but you don't hae to read the whole thing.  Check the table of contents and look at the data against what you've claimed in your post.   It might surprise you that the US is branded as the Wild West of old but it's really not.  Not do our lax guns laws lead to great gun crime. 

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf


For the record, I don't own a gun and don't intend to.   I just prefer to know the realities of a situation rather than the generatlities that get thrown around.

 

I will address the theater situation a little since it is obviously not going to be specifically covered in that pdf file.  Had Holmes not legally obtained the weapons, he would have illegally obtained them.  Assuming that he couldn't buy them legally would have prevented him from committing his attack is foolish.  Nor is it wise to assume he commited the attack solely because he could buy them legally.

 

I will definitely give that article a read when I get the time. Essentially, you are right. If he couldn't get them legally, he would have gotten his hands on them illegally. But the benefit to that is 1) the difficulty in attaining illegal firearms, and 2) the excessive price you would have to pay for an illegal firearm. Those 2 factors can deter away some would-be criminals. As for the really determined, instead of spending an exorbitant amount of cash on an assault rifle and shotgun (as James Holmes possessed), he may have gone for a handgun. So in essance, perhaps the crime couldn't be stopped, but instead of having 12 deaths and 70 wounded, you'll end up with a few. I mean, it sounds silly (the whole less deaths is better than many), but it is better!

I'll read your article later and see what it says, I am sure there is some interesting stuff in there.

Better yet, as per Chris Rock's stand-up comedy, he says something along the lines of keep your guns laws in place, just raise the price of bullets. If each bullet costs $5,000, then no one will walk into a theater and just spray them all over the place. He said it as a joke many years ago, but it is actually a smart soultion, although there will never be the day when a bullet costs that much, but y'know what I mean.

I don't think you get how easy it is to obtain a weapon illegaly here in the US.  Certainlly he went through all the correct channels to get a hold of his weapons, but in reality it wasn't really any "easier" to get them. The reality in the US is that it simply cost a little more to get illegal weapon and sometimes less depending on were you're buying the weapons and from whome.

I'll be honest. I am not aware of the difficulty and prices to purchase weapons illegally. If what you are saying is true, then god damn do we live in a scary world!



Cueil on 25 July 2012

The point of owning a gun in the US isn't really to protect against criminals it is to protect against our own government. That is the point of our second amendment.



 
Get your Portable ID!

bouzane on 25 July 2012
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.



mitlar37 on 25 July 2012

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.



 WII Code: 1732 3363 1704 6441

Around the Network
Cueil on 25 July 2012
MessiaH said:
Cueil said:
MessiaH said:
Viper1 said:
MessiaH said:

Viper, I understand your logic and how you are thinking. Naturally, if criminals know we have guns, they are less inclined to commit crimes. But that argument has been debunked by research. USA, which allows people to have guns (not in all states) has the HIGHEST number of homocides through the use of guns compared to other countries that don't have guns. 

For example, USA has over 8,000 gun murders per year. Canada has only 200. UK has only 60. Japan has 2 (they had 18 one year which was regarded as insane and such a high number). Now you will tell me that the US has a bigger population than other countries and so naturally it will have more murders. But let us do simple maths. US has approximately 300million people, Canada has about 30 million (I am rounding to make things easier). So the US has 10 times more people. Multiply the gun murders in Canada by 10, that is 200x10 = 2000 murders by guns. That is still a QUARTER of the number of murders in the US. 

The facts are clear, if you allow people to have guns, people will get killed. I mean, look at this guy. No one suspected a thing out of him. He is a graduate student of neurosciences. I saw him hold presentations in class, he looked like a totally normal kid, then BAM. he goes out and slaughters all these people. He didn't think twice whether he would be gunned down or not. Also, accidental killings happen when people have guns. So for instance, apparently the people at the theater that got shot at, over 40% of them went out and bought a gun for protection so that would never happen again. But that is not the right thing to do, because if the situation was repeated but the crowd had a bunch of guns, people would still be dead, A) because the murderer was wearing full anti-ballistic body armor and would not have been killed with the shots fired his way, and B) amidst the smoke grenades, the darkness in the theater, and the chaos and madness going on in there, I guarantee you those innocents with guns would have accidentally shot another innocent bystander as they could not see shit. Probably more people would have died in this alternate gun-toting scenario.

So no. Just because people are allowed to have guns, does not mean that crimes will stop. It has been proven year over year that this is not the case simply by numbers and simple research, and there has been no valid argument to prove that murders would decrease. But many Americans seem to think that the Constitution was written by a God and cannot be altered and has to be followed word by word, or else....! It is crazy to think that! The Constitution was written in the 1700's man!!! What they were going through back then was different to what we are living today. There was no such thing as a full fledged police force back then, people were being invaded by the British back then, guns were simple and can shoot 1 bullet at a time after a lengthy reload process (unlike fully automatic weapons that slice through scores of people now like that low life asshole did in the theater).

Those mass shootings, as far as I know, are typically done by someone with ZERO criminal background. They are the "law abiding citizens" you speak off that go nuts and go on mass murders. Dude, if you lose it, you've fuckin lost it. You are not thinking rationally anymore, you are not thinking "oh my, will they shoot me if i do this?!" no! you are thinking "ok, they have guns, so i gotta shoot them all real fast and make sure they dont have a chance to reataliate!" Also, some of these mass murderes turn the gun on themselves and suicide, so they don't give a fuck about someone in the crowd having a gun.

There is no reason for Americans to turn a blind eye to this and STILL after all the evidence put in front of them deny that aboloshing guns would reduce gun murders. There is no room for ignorance in the 21st century! People need to wisen up, see the truth, and rise! Otherwise, you might be present in the next big shooting if the status quo is not changed.

I was going to counterpoint a lot of your post but that will lead to a very cluttered and hard to follow debate.

So instead, I'm going to leave a link to a pdf file.  I hope that you'll take a few minutes to read it with an open mind.  It has a lot of answers to the myths of gun crime in the US and the rest of the world and it's all backed up by official sources.  It's 107 pages but you don't hae to read the whole thing.  Check the table of contents and look at the data against what you've claimed in your post.   It might surprise you that the US is branded as the Wild West of old but it's really not.  Not do our lax guns laws lead to great gun crime. 

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf


For the record, I don't own a gun and don't intend to.   I just prefer to know the realities of a situation rather than the generatlities that get thrown around.

 

I will address the theater situation a little since it is obviously not going to be specifically covered in that pdf file.  Had Holmes not legally obtained the weapons, he would have illegally obtained them.  Assuming that he couldn't buy them legally would have prevented him from committing his attack is foolish.  Nor is it wise to assume he commited the attack solely because he could buy them legally.

 

I will definitely give that article a read when I get the time. Essentially, you are right. If he couldn't get them legally, he would have gotten his hands on them illegally. But the benefit to that is 1) the difficulty in attaining illegal firearms, and 2) the excessive price you would have to pay for an illegal firearm. Those 2 factors can deter away some would-be criminals. As for the really determined, instead of spending an exorbitant amount of cash on an assault rifle and shotgun (as James Holmes possessed), he may have gone for a handgun. So in essance, perhaps the crime couldn't be stopped, but instead of having 12 deaths and 70 wounded, you'll end up with a few. I mean, it sounds silly (the whole less deaths is better than many), but it is better!

I'll read your article later and see what it says, I am sure there is some interesting stuff in there.

Better yet, as per Chris Rock's stand-up comedy, he says something along the lines of keep your guns laws in place, just raise the price of bullets. If each bullet costs $5,000, then no one will walk into a theater and just spray them all over the place. He said it as a joke many years ago, but it is actually a smart soultion, although there will never be the day when a bullet costs that much, but y'know what I mean.

I don't think you get how easy it is to obtain a weapon illegaly here in the US.  Certainlly he went through all the correct channels to get a hold of his weapons, but in reality it wasn't really any "easier" to get them. The reality in the US is that it simply cost a little more to get illegal weapon and sometimes less depending on were you're buying the weapons and from whome.

I'll be honest. I am not aware of the difficulty and prices to purchase weapons illegally. If what you are saying is true, then god damn do we live in a scary world!

It's more scary then you can possibly imagine.  



 
Get your Portable ID!

MessiaH on 25 July 2012
Cueil said:
The point of owning a gun in the US isn't really to protect against criminals it is to protect against our own government. That is the point of our second amendment.

True. Unfortunately, the people are far out-teched by the government. Back in the 1700's a soldier and civilian had pretty much the same weapons. Today is a different story. I don't think the people have a chance if something like that were to happen. But who knows, there could be many influencers that give the edge to the people (numbers, outside help, etc).



osed125 on 25 July 2012

I believe that Americans should have a better control in gun laws, not banned them because that would be just stupid. For example, in my country getting a gun is a pain in the butt because of all the documents you have to send and all that kind of stuff, getting a normal 9mm handgun in my country can take up to 6 months and I believe that's it how it should be. And please stop selling normal people guns that can be used for war, that it's just plain stupid imo.



Nintendo and PC gamer

MessiaH on 25 July 2012
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...



Cueil on 25 July 2012
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.



 
Get your Portable ID!