Mass shooting at Batman premiere in Colorado

Discussion in 'Serious Chat' started by minuteforce, Jul 20, 2012.

  1. Erica

    Erica Meh LPA Über VIP

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2010
    Messages:
    11,507
    Likes Received:
    40



    I think this is more about our country than anything else. I don't think we can really compare us to the rest of the world. It just doesn't match up. Idk if its the state of the economy or maybe it has to do with the population. Maybe we just have poorer mental health here for some odd reason. But I'm not entirely sure guns are the real issue. I think people are the issue.
     
  2. travz21

    travz21 Muscle Museum LPA Super Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    4,000
    Likes Received:
    1



    Nice fallacy.

    Australia only has 1/14th the population of the US. Do you think that might be a more likely reason why shooting sprees don't happen as often? The US has an estimated 1/3rd of the guns in the world compared to Australia's 1/300th. So we have 14x more people and 100x more guns. If it was simple, like you say, we should be having shooting massacres about once a week.


    Written in 2004: More gun control isn't the answer

     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2012
  3. Susy

    Susy god break down the door LPA Contributor

    Joined:
    May 23, 2012
    Messages:
    10,879
    Likes Received:
    630



    You can't say that a whole country has poorer mental health than all the others. It's a country with 313 million people, do you really think that there won't be a couple mentally deranged people who are going to do this every now and then? When I say ''a couple'', in this case, it can be half a million people... I mean, I live in a country with less than 5 million people, and every now and then: ''man kills his family'', ''a little girl disappeared'' and so on...
     
  4. Will

    Will bread crumbs & white stones LPA Addicted VIP

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2002
    Messages:
    35,486
    Likes Received:
    0



    Having stricter gun laws isn't going to change anything. Criminals are still going to find ways to acquire the guns. It doesn't matter whether they go through the longer, more drawn-out process of obtaining a gun (which is what would happen if gun laws were made more strict) or if they decide to hit up the black market and acquire guns that way. It's the same problem as with the drug trade: people are always going to find ways around any laws that are set in place. I also don't think it would cut back on events like this at all. They don't happen too often (as someone else pointed out). The people stricter gun laws would hurt are hunters and people who would actually need the guns (like my boss, who lives out in the middle of nowhere, where it would take a police officer 30-45 minutes to reach her if she has a problem; she'd need a gun, for her own protection, at that point). Anyone who thinks stricter gun laws would prevent this sort of thing from happening is delusional.
     
  5. shinformant

    shinformant Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2012
    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    0



    The fact that I prefaced the final paragraph of that post with "in all seriousness" should really have been a dead giveaway. If you can barely even read should you really be trusted with a gun?

    You're overlooking what is really quite a straightforward yet salient point, which is that guns facilitate physical harm and death and are designed to do so. Obviously they don't kill people of their own volition, but anyone who tries to argue that or thinks that that's even a commonly used argument against them is a fucking moron, frankly. I haven't yet disagreed with the notion that guns shouldn't be regulated, but when people are disengenuous like this it makes it very hard to sympathise. It's an issue that's much more nuanced than you're giving it credit for and deserving of much more respect than "GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE RAPPERS DO LOLZ ALSO I WANT TO BE ABLE TO FORM A MILITIA NEXT TIME TAX RISES ON BIG MACS" which seems to be the crux of most arguments in favour.
     
  6. Louis

    Louis Message me if you need to talk. We love you all. LPA Team

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Messages:
    8,769
    Likes Received:
    303



    Then we need regulation that addresses the faults in the system and stricter enforcement, if somehow plain old regulation for guns isn't going to solve the problem. I can't see how arming everyone will fix anything either. That, to me, just sounds like a stupid idea.
     
  7. Hybrid

    Hybrid Meow! This cat has claws! LPA Team

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,707
    Likes Received:
    660



    Okay, so first off, by prefacing a paragraph by saying "In all seriousness," does not mean that everything stated before that should have been ignored or written off as "just kidding." I have no problem reading, for you shinformation.

    Next, you said that they facilitate harm violence and death. Yes. They are weapons. That's what they do. My point here on my side of the arguement is that there is a lot of human involvement for the gun to go off and end what ever is on the receiving end of the barrell. Society in America today, for what ever reason, has a hard time putting the blame of any kind on someone as a person. Unfortunately, not all people are good. There are evil people. For whatever reason, society cannot grasp that. The way I see it is that if someone murdered 80 people, they murdered 80 people. They did it. Not the gun. Not the knife. Not the explosive. They did it. They, the person, had cognative inclination of what they were doing. They knew they were going to kill someone. The weapons did not, they were merely used by someone with evil intentions.

    The problem with weapons lies when someone uses it as an offensive action rather than a defensive reaction. If someone with evil intentions comes into my house, I would feel more comfortable knowing that I had some sort of defense against them. I was told to never aim a gun, loaded or not, at anything I don't wish to destroy. That lesson held water with me as I will never use a gun as an offensive measure. It is a last ditch, worst case scenario.

    As far as regulations on guns goes, I think there needs to be some kind of regulation. For example, Automatic firearms have no business in the hands of an untrained civilian. If someone wants to shoot one, I think they should only be kept at shooting ranges only. on the other hand, Bolt-action rifles, non-automatic pistols and shotguns are an exception. The difference? Rate of fire. Those guns aren't designed to fire more than (usually) 1 round per second. I say usually because someone can pull the trigger faster than a second using a semiautomatic pistol. I guess my point is, no more "point and sprays."

    Lastly, Shinformant, I do agree with you that there are a lot of dumb people who have guns, unfortunately. It really is too bad that people lack discipline and respect when it comes to firearms.
     
  8. Juliet

    Juliet Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2012
    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    0



    Stricter gun laws aren't going to result in a decrease in crime. If we enforced better rules when it came to owning a gun, it might help, but it definitely won't stop. Some states tried passing laws where you have to wait at least 24 hours to own a gun, so they could do a backround check on you. Will this help prevent criminals from owning something dangerous? Yes, but this guy wasn't a criminal, and he had no reason for anyone to believe he would commit something as terrible as this. He was a smart guy who probably had a mental breakdown and snapped. Stricter gun laws wouldn't have stopped this guy, he could've still gotten his hands on a gun.
     
  9. Hybrid

    Hybrid Meow! This cat has claws! LPA Team

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,707
    Likes Received:
    660



    Great point. I agree with you.
     
  10. Harlz

    Harlz More Scared Of You Than You Are Of Me LPA Super Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,778
    Likes Received:
    22



    Ok, all else aside, why the fuck is it legal to own something that is essentially an assault rifle? (yes, I know it's not exactly the same, but it may as well be an M16.)

    Keep your handguns for self defence, and shotguns for farmers, but why the fuck does anyone need something like that for personal use? You can't justify that.
     
  11. SuperDude526

    SuperDude526 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,137
    Likes Received:
    9



    As a great comedian once said, gun supporters claim that "guns don't kill people, people do," but I think it helps. You're not gonna kill too many people standing in a crowded area making gun noises; it's the bullets that are doing the work. Or in other words, USING A GUN.
     
  12. Brandon

    Brandon I was Ree's 100th follower on Twitter.

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2010
    Messages:
    2,361
    Likes Received:
    124



    I'm pretty torn on the issue. On the one hand, I'd consider myself a Libertarian, but on the other hand, I fucking hate guns.

    Also, people claim that if someone else in the theatre had a gun, they could have helped stop this guy. Am I the only one who thinks that the only thing worse than a guy shooting guns in a theatre, is TWO guys shooting guns in a theatre? The idea of a firefight breaking out in a crowded public place doesn't seem much better to me.
     
  13. travz21

    travz21 Muscle Museum LPA Super Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    4,000
    Likes Received:
    1



    It's like my posts don't even exist.


    Louis, what's your opinion on why government fails at keeping drugs out of our country? They can't keep track of the drugs and have no idea how much is in the market. Drugs are all over the place and being consumed by hundreds of thousands of people daily. The government fails at everything it does. Whenever stuff isn't working, most people say it's just because there isn't enough government involvement, which they can keep saying infinitely when government keeps on failing. Do you think more government is needed to completely deal with the drug issue? Do you see why more government involvement in gun control will do absolutely nothing, even if it's just really tight regulations?
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2012
  14. Hybrid

    Hybrid Meow! This cat has claws! LPA Team

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,707
    Likes Received:
    660



    Trav, you are right. It's hard to make new rules when the old ones aren't being followed.
     
  15. Susy

    Susy god break down the door LPA Contributor

    Joined:
    May 23, 2012
    Messages:
    10,879
    Likes Received:
    630



    If you guys were some kind of a president or whoever makes those decisions, how would you stop 300 million people from doing something?

    If you forbid guns, there will be people who are going to turn their weapons in (however that goes, I learned the phrase from TV shows) and be good citizens, but, do you really think that there won't be thousands of people who will keep their weapons, and still do crazy **** like this?
     
  16. SuperDude526

    SuperDude526 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,137
    Likes Received:
    9



    Your problem is that you only see the instances in which government fails. Fortunately there are plenty of times in which government succeeds and is able to do good for society. All-against-all does nothing but evil to society; heck, society can't exist in such a world.
     
  17. travz21

    travz21 Muscle Museum LPA Super Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    4,000
    Likes Received:
    1



    Do you know how government "does good for society"? By stealing money through force and coercion. Everything they do is based on that. You can't be taking a moral stance behind government.

    Everything the government does can be done through voluntary exchange with private companies. If you want to take a moral stance, that's where you should be taking it.
     
  18. Agent

    Agent Formerly known as Agent Sideburns LPA Über VIP

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2006
    Messages:
    11,884
    Likes Received:
    89


  19. Brandon

    Brandon I was Ree's 100th follower on Twitter.

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2010
    Messages:
    2,361
    Likes Received:
    124


  20. Louis

    Louis Message me if you need to talk. We love you all. LPA Team

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Messages:
    8,769
    Likes Received:
    303



    I do see your point - and I don't think it's invalid. I do want to provide a counter to that, while answering your questions.

    I think the government fails to keep drugs out of the country for a variety of reasons - one of which is that it is ultimately impossible to do so. And I think I have sort of acknowledged this point earlier, as have others, that at the end of the day the people who want to do bad things and break the law will do so. Law enforcement is only so strong, and as such we have to come to accept at a point that maybe there are some things we can't fix and have to keep our eyes open so that no one is getting hurt because of them. At the same time, the things that we can prevent, the things that we can stop and try fixing - I see no reason as to why we shouldn't make the attempt. Maybe it means passing another law or instituting another regulation - but sometimes that might be the solution. It ultimately depends on what the regulation is, under what conditions it is enforced, etc. We need people in our government and educated citizens who can help to come up with smart, innovative pieces of regulation.

    I wouldn't say that the government fails at everything it does because the government does a lot of things for us that perhaps we don't realize. We pay tax dollars to enable the government to do a lot of things. Unless I am mistaken, unless you pay your taxes, the government can't provide for the ambulance that maybe you or a family member will need if something happens, or the fire truck when your house catches fire, etc. The government, to my understanding, does a lot of things correctly and we need to give it credit where it is due. Are there areas where it fails? Certainly. There are things the government does not tell us, policies that are not well enforced or are simply not good policies, laws passed that are extreme (PATRIOT Act) and stupid (No Child Left Behind Act), etc. However, here is where I would argue that we need to take advantage of our rights that the Constitution grants to us. WE are the government, or at least, are supposed to be. I don't know how many of you go out to vote, but if you're of voting age and don't vote in every election that you possibly can, you're doing yourself and everyone a disservice. If we are so displeased with government, why aren't more people taking advantage of their right to shape it? I feel people overlook this issue time and time again and I don't know why people forget to discuss this when something bad happens. Maybe if the people in Congress weren't voted by 20% of their districts, maybe if the Presidency was actually determined by a popular vote one day where 90% of the country was voting - we'd see a difference, and a positive one. People would be happier of the government regardless of how much power it had because we would, in fact, be the government.

    I digress here, but I wanted to make that point because I think we do a lot to separate the government from ourselves and that is the reason the government "fails" to do things. If we aren't directing the government, voicing our opinions, calling our representatives and making ourselves heard - does it really matter at the end of the day? Your opinion means nothing if your representative doesn't know about it - but it's your civic duty to make your voice heard. Everyone says, "The government doesn't listen to us" or that it doesn't care. A lot of those people don't vote, have friends who don't vote, etc.

    Anyway, to continue to address your point in the more specific manners - I think more government could be used in the sense of doing things like regulating the sale and taxing of marijuana. I feel that this is actually a really good idea, because so many people use it. People pay for it anyway, people will buy it - why not regulate, distribute, and tax it? The government could make a lot of money off that and redirect that money to things that matter - like education, which is grossly underfunded in a lot of places (particularly Arizona and California). Now, then again, that might vary from state to state and wouldn't necessarily be the bidding of the federal government - but more government here seems to make some sense. As for other drugs...we can only do so much as I mentioned earlier. At that point I think our efforts are better spent trying to prevent the violence that results from drug cartels, as opposed to worrying about drugs getting into the country.

    With gun control, I think this is a different story. Admittedly, I'm a little swayed and a bit intrigued by some of the statistics you have offered in regards to gun crimes going up in places where gun laws are strict. And at the end of the day, I must clarify that my issue isn't with people having guns - I don't think it unwise to own a gun if you want it for self-defense, or to have a hunting rifle if that's what you do. But my issue sort of lies with the fact that it is terribly easy to get a gun in a lot of places. People who want a gun will get a gun, but I don't think it's okay for just about anybody to go to Walmart and pick up a gun! I don't think it's okay that you don't have to be trained after purchasing a gun! Give people the right to defend themselves, that's fine with me. But if they don't know how to use their gun, they are a threat to themselves and those around them. Is it not an unfair suggestion to mandate intense training upon the intended purchase of such a lethal weapon?

    And is it not unfair to simply prevent anyone from owning an assault rifle or a semi-automatic weapon? Anything that is designed to kill and assault? I mean, I don't like the idea that anyone can grab one of those guns. Unless you're military trained, why own one? I think it's a scary thing that someone can buy a weapon like that and no one cares to think, "Why is this person buying a gun like this?" I think there are some regulations that need to be imposed so that if people are going to have a gun, they'd better have a simple handgun and know how to use it. It is enough to defend themselves, which is what I would hope most people want a gun for. This isn't the government somehow barging in on our rights - it is simply assuring a safer ownership and usage of that weapon. I don't think that's unfair or unjust in any way. Does it make a little harder for you to get that gun? Sure, but if you really want it and want to defend yourself, wouldn't you want to know how to use it?

    I guess to really answer your question, I don't think involvement in gun control would do *absolutely* nothing. Is it really going to thwart any criminals? No. A true criminal with the intent to kill will find his gun somewhere. But why not make it difficult for them to get it? Why not put some measures in place that can trigger warning signs? Why not implement some intensive background checks and health checks that will just make sure that the person who is getting this gun is at least not mentally insane? I don't think this really prevents anyone from getting a gun that wants it - but things like this might have prevented, say, the Virginia Tech disaster some time ago. I mean, we all say that people could go to the black market - but I mean, I think Todd said it earlier - would you really know where to turn for that? How many of you think you could easily find a way to obtain your weapon through the black market?

    I have high doubts about that - and as such, I don't think gun regulation is an unfair idea. It needs to be implemented correctly and with the intent to ensure that if you have a weapon, you are a threat to no one but someone who is a threat to you. As someone said earlier, you should be trained to only shoot that which you wish to destroy and be able to keep composure in the case of an emergency. This sort of regulation is smart - because the idea of arming everyone or even just someone in that theater with a gun could be dangerous. If everyone is panicking around them, is the ordinary person going to get up and take down that shooter? Probably not, because like I said, they've tested this sort of thing. People failed and ended up hurting someone else. And in a theater or public venue, the chances of someone getting hurt go up with multiple people in the room with armed weapons - particularly if that second person cannot use it properly.

    To sum up, regulations need to be smart, specific, and tactile. We cannot brand regulation as a bad thing or the government as a bad thing because we are in control of those things, and their specifics and details matter. Smart laws can be good ones. Regulations can be good and do good things if written, implemented and enforced properly and with careful case-by-case attention. We need to be attentive and specific, but I still say that some gun laws might be necessary. I think with the Aurora shooting, we simply might have just a really bizarre case - but he still got his hands on a pretty ridiculous weapon. I mean, you know better than I do what weapon it was, but it was a weapon that enabled him to shoot a lot of bullets at a lot of people - and that shouldn't happen. He was ordering a lot of things from a lot of places - we all know people can see what we're buying unless we're paying in cold, hard cash - why were there no flags raised?

    I dno, I know you have something for all of my arguments and that's okay - I think maybe we're just on opposite sides of the spectrum - but I mean, is doing nothing really going to prevent these things from happening? I really just don't know if I can say that.
     

Share This Page