Why? Just give condolences to the families who lost somebody and vote for the guy who will try to prevent shit like this happening again.Originally Posted by Frug
Why? Just give condolences to the families who lost somebody and vote for the guy who will try to prevent shit like this happening again.
Do you mean photos of killer?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18935153
Why? Just give condolences to the families who lost somebody and vote for the guy who will try to prevent shit like this happening again.
Just what are politicians supposed to do in order to prevent psychos from going on murder sprees every now and then? Watch everyone, all the time? Lock up all guns, all the time? There is no way to achieve a murder-free society without giving more power to the Government; America's Government is in no need for even more power to use against its citizens.
Last edited by Evelgrivion; July 20 2012 at 09:48:13 PM.
It's all fine not wanting to discuss that issue. Your initial post in the Dark Knight Rises thread was also fine.
That is, if you hadn't included that last paragraph there. You call there essentially everyone from the other side of the gun debate someone who does not listen to reason or arguments and only hold on their position because of their viewpoint / political agenda. You do not find that a bit insulting?
In short, you insult the other side and then say you won't discuss that topic because you will just be insulted.
Last edited by Aramendel; July 20 2012 at 09:48:34 PM.
Actually he said he didn't want to talk about it and retracted his post so get off him.It's all fine not wanting to discuss that issue. Your initial post in the Dark Knight Rises thread was also fine.
That is, if you hadn't included that last paragraph there. You call there essentially everyone from the other side of the gun debate someone who does not listen to reason or arguments and only hold on their position because of their viewpoint / political agenda. You do not find that a bit insulting?
In short, you insult the other side and then say you won't discuss that topic because you will just be insulted.
He was crazy. If he couldnt have gotten a gun he would have used a knife. Or made a bomb. Crazy people will always find a way. You cant have freedom without risking people using that freedom in a bad way sadly.
ever tried going on a knife rampage? its alot more physically demanding than with a gun, and most americans are overweight.
so ban guns and be safer
Bombs
Ban guns, then only criminals (and police/military) will have them. That should be fairly obvious. To be fair, there'd clearly be fewer accidents involving firearms were they banned.
But don't get suckered into a gun control debate. It's a trap the media and politicians love. The REAL issue is mental health.
Also, per Jason Marshall....he apparently was quite able to build explosive devices to place in his apartment. Had he not had access to firearms he surely could have done something with explosives in the theater.
If they did go on a knife rampage they would then be able to burn some fat off too.
its the healthy option
I don't understand why he told the cops to be careful of his booby-trapped apartment. Having second thoughts after shooting a bunch of people?
5 pages in, that means there's a 99% chance that someone made a guns=freedom argument.
I'm not sure why we have this reputation, but Colorado is not Texas, or Wyoming, or any of the other western states. Guns and gun shows aren't uncommon here, but you also don't have trucks with gun racks (its incredibly rare) and CCW permits are the exception and not the norm. Most citizens in Colorado are not packing heat in their day to day lives, even if we are a gun friendly state on the whole.
Even if you did have armed citizens in that theater, the result could in no way improve. In a dark, crowded theater with panic and tear/smoke? gas being thrown around, I wouldn't trust anyone to be an accurate or safe shooter. That's not a concern for the crazy guy with the gun, but for everyone else it is. Chances are they all end up mistaking each-other for the real shooter, and then SWAT shows up and drops 50 rounds into everyone left standing by that point. This tragedy would not have been improved with additional firepower due to the very nature of the venue.
If you want a real culprit to blame, blame the crazy guy. Short of that, blame the theater's crappy security of their emergency exits (though I'm sure if you were to randomly audit most businesses, you'd find a plethora of such security holes to potentially exploit. Its just shit luck that it happened to this particular theater).
Banning guns doesn't solve anything either, the gun density is far too high in the United States to do anything about it at this point, even if you had the political capital to do so (which will never ever happen anyways). Basically, this kind of thing happens every now and then. Its like a tornado or a hurricane - unpredictable, deadly, and without any way to seek justice or recourse after the fact.
Statistics disagree with you.
Simply check gun violence in other western countries which pretty much all have stricter gun laws then USA and compare. The difference is staggering. But please continue to spew bullshit like GUNS ARE ESSENTIAL TO MY FREEDOM since most people who are for this seem to think life isnt essential to freedom.
I'd like to point out again that the debate about gun control is SPARKED by incidents such as this, but aren't actually in place to PREVENT incidents like this.
A psychotic lunatic will find a way to do damage if they are determined enough. Sad truth about society: We are proliferating the world at a level that no other species (except ants) can compare to. We have lunatics amongst us, coupled with the additional stress of living in post-modernity (which has been verified by numerous scientists as overtaxing our capacity to deal with information and stimuli) and they can go on rampages.
But those incidents, while dramatic, account for something like 2% of all gun related casualties. Gun control is in place to prevent A) accidents B) escalation of conflict and C) low threshold of getting into crime (because the means of force is so readily available).
There are two arguments I'd also just like to briefly respond to.
1) That if gun control were enforced, all the criminals would have guns and the innocent, good citizen is defenseless. This is one of the biggest fallacies in modern media, and is so excessively frequently cited even though it makes very little sense. Again, the first issue with the argument is that people make the erroneous assumption that the majority of gun casualties are at the hand of psychotic mass murderer lunatics. Those are actually in extremely short supply, and we've already established that you won't stop those people no matter how many Orwellian draconian security measures you put into place. Of course, I have to add that the theory behind gun control is no longer fully applicable to the USA, because you've put yourself in the situation where guns are so proliferate that you'd never EVER be able to clean it up, but that shouldn't stop you from trying to make small steps so that your future generations can enjoy their freedom in safety, instead of fear.
For that fight you had with your spouse that was the culmination of 5 years of bad sex? Gun at the hand=possible homicide. Actually having to look for black market dealers, get cash for back alley deals on a piece etc=pre-mediation. There's a reason those things have separate nomenclatures in law.
All the other countries with gun control in place (with a total surface area AND population far exceeding the US) have a fraction of the gun casualties of the US. This gives credence to the rather logical premise that a barfight without a gun is less likely to escalate to shooting if there are no fucking guns in the hands of the fucking people having the fight.
2) The inane statement that this incident is an argument for spreading MORE guns amongst the common populace, as well as easing the gun-rules in establishments such as theaters. Right, let's roll with that idea:
I'm watching a movie with some of my buddies. 500 or so other people in the theater with me. It's pitch black, and there's a shoot out on the screen. Some of the gunshots sound eerily real, which we dismiss as special effects until we hear some screaming. Suddenly everyone is getting up. I'm panicked, spooked, adrenaline coursing through my fucking veins. My girlfriend is with me, I don't want her to get shot! Good thing I have my gun with me. Pull it out, shots resounding around me. Couple of chairs below me, glint of metal in the reflected light of the screen. Vaguely silhouetted guy and he's pointing a gun at me and my loved ones! More screaming, animal instincts take over, shoot at the purported aggressor. Shots are being fired left and right now, I can't see shit, people are pushing me, screaming and crying all around me. I see some guy firing into the crowd ahead of me, take him out. Turns out he was just firing at someone else who was firing at someone he thought was the shooter! Mass panic, death and blood and screaming all around, can't think straight, start firing at anyone who points a gun at me (and that's everyone).
... It would have been a fucking massacre. 12 deaths are tragic enough, with mass panic that would erupt in a completely darkened room with loud reverberating noise and echoes, everyone having guns would have resulted in an orgy of death and tragic loss of life.
Frankly, I don't think it's a very good idea.
Armed police officers in Britain have a bit of a shit deal tbh, that whole escapade last august because cops shot mark duggan is a great example, the guy had a handgun and armed officers shot him, people complained that he hadn't done anything threatening with it and pointed to the Independent police complaints commission's swift decision to investigate as a sign that it should not have occurred. Firstly despite every plausible form of news coverage on the matter none really seemed too hasty to mention that whenever an officer fires his gun in the line of duty here he is instantly placed on suspension and an IPCC investigation is mandatory, you could be shooting at godzilla attacking an orphanage and you'd still have to spend months explaining it and filling in paperwork. The fact that the suspect didn't point the gun at anyone was hardly a reason not to shoot him, he had a handgun, we can deduce that he intended to shoot someone and thus he was shot first.
That turned into a mini-rant... anyway, my point, guns are not useful for anything but harm and people use them for that, it's harder to kill quite so many people without access to one of mankind's most efficient methods of murder but as far as america goes the horse has left the stable.
If the government were to take away my right to bear arms in this glorious country called America it would literally be hitler. Guns keep America free even if I only have a air pistol.
^ just incase
killing all those people is just fucked up.
What is this guy, some kind of Joker?
statistically 9 out of 10 people enjoy gang repping
You were way too slow.If the government were to take away my right to bear arms in this glorious country called America it would literally be hitler. Guns keep America free even if I only have a air pistol.
^ just incase
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks