Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
On July 22 2012 07:03 spilledmilk wrote: It doesn't matter really. People who want to harm others will easily find a way to do so. Buy a gun on the street, burn down a building etc. The problem is not the weapons, it is the people. As the saying goes guns don't kill people, people kill people.
I own guns, yes even in Canuckistan we can legally poses weapons. But none of my guns have ever walked into a school or theatre and killed people. They need me to do that.
And frankly I am not batshit, so that won't happen.
Accessibility to guns does result in more gun-related injuries and deaths though.
Can you stop people from being violent? No.
Can you make it reasonably harder for stupid people to kill each other with better gun laws? Yup.
I think Canada has reasonable gun laws. You couldn't even buy the assault rifle that Holmes had legally without the restricted licence.
Lax gun restrictions give irresponsible gun owners the opportunity to make all gun owners look bad.
Yup the casualties in the theatre would have been single digit... Meanwhile the casualties in the night club next day are triple digit when the weekly fistfight turns into a shoot out... For every citizen who knows when and who and how to shoot, there are a dozen who don't. Not against gun ownership, but you must be living and hanging out in some reasoned, happy go lucky law abiding places if you'd really feel safer if everyone around you was packing. Most places I go, the people are one of the following: abrasive, hostile, criminal, feeble or unsteady wristed, drunk or on drugs, homeless and or crazy, roided out, etc. we have a hard enough time with everyone driving cars.
On July 22 2012 07:29 Zahir wrote: Yup the casualties in the theatre would have been single digit... Meanwhile the casualties in the night club next day are triple digit when the weekly fistfight turns into a shoot out... For every citizen who knows when and who and how to shoot, there are a dozen who don't.
I don't even think that having armed people in the theatre would have helped at all. The murderer threw a smoke grenade before he started shooting. Having several armed and scared shitless people in the theatre wouldn't have helped at all. They wouldn't see anything because of the smoke, and even then, how are they supposed to tell the madman dressed in black from 60+ kids dressed in black batman suits? It would have ended in eve more deaths. IMO people stressing their right to carry arms are just brainwashed by the incredibly powerful US weapons lobby.
On July 22 2012 07:45 Skoe420 wrote: This is the stupidest thread i have ever seen how is it not locked?
Listen 30 posts, the idea of a discussion is that there will be two parties arguing... YES some of the posts have been ridiculous (and I've made a few claims that later I retracted because the other sides argument made a claim I couldn't negate) but just because you think it's stupid doesn't mean it is. Sorry.
EDIT: In fact, it's issues like gun control, abortion, health care that we should debate because they have some of the biggest implications in today's society.
The powerful gun lobby is a combination of organizations that ask their members to call congress to vote for guns rights. For the record it's not like the BIG-whatever sterotype lobbies that throw money at politicians for their own profit.
Why is this important to know? Because gun rights is a POPULAR movement in the United States and there is no conspiracy of "IF ONLY PEOPLE KNEW!"
Well this topic has been discussed and the general consensus is that rules only prevent law abiding citizens from owning guns. Since criminals are not law abiding citizens, they will get the guns regardless of any rules and regulations.
On July 22 2012 08:03 decker247777 wrote: Well this topic has been discussed and the general consensus is that rules only prevent law abiding citizens from owning guns. Since criminals are not law abiding citizens, they will get the guns regardless of any rules and regulations.
For the US (because rest of world already managed to keep criminals from having guns) state based gun laws are a complete waste of time since you can just go one state over and get a gun which renders the whole thing pointless. Even so the actual benefit to having a gun rarely outweighs the negatives.
On July 22 2012 08:03 decker247777 wrote: Well this topic has been discussed and the general consensus is that rules only prevent law abiding citizens from owning guns. Since criminals are not law abiding citizens, they will get the guns regardless of any rules and regulations.
General consensus? I've stated my argument countless of times, not any response from pro-guns. With gun control like in Europe, not any crack addict has a guns. Only big guys have them, and they use it to shoot other criminals, not law abiding citizens. Because all they are interested in is money. + Those high profile criminals have interest in keeping the number of guns low, and all of them in their own hands.
So yes some criminals will still have access to guns, but those criminals are the less dangerous for the law-abiding citizens.
It will be a hard path for the US, but by progressive stricter gun control it can get to the point where most of the other developed countries are.
Having 30 people in the theatre pulling out handguns at the first gunshots would have likely resulted in a lot more deaths.
When you look around, with gun in hand, and hear gunshots going off, and see people in the room with gun in hand, many people (remember these are common citizens, not soldiers or police with training) are going to panic when they see someone pointing a gun in their general vicinity.
No one will know who is someone trying to protect themself, and who is an accomplice to the gunner.
It was a horrible tragedy, and I wish we would have some sort of system of required training or testing in order to purchase certain or even all firearms. If a drivers license requires written and practical testing, a license for a weapon designed with killing in mind should as well.
I will agree with one thing though, even if the second ammendment was repealed (I'm not saying that I support this or not) I don't see how you could practically get the guns out of the country. There are so many in the surrounding countries, and there are hundreds of millions of guns in this country, many unregistered.
On the otherhand, all of the people saying worrying that at any moment the government will become some regime that is killing the people, requiring its citizens to take up arms against it, or that China/Iran is about to invade....you seem disconnected from reality.
this issue is really a tough one and i honestly cant understand who people can laugh about others arguments so easily.
i know that societies without any guns would be preferable. but as long as i live in a society, where scenes like these:
almost happen on a daily basis, i wanna be able to defend myself where the police does not. i just dont like being a nice victim to beat for everyone. yeah sure, its not likely, that this does happen to me. but i pretty much dont care too much about statistics when it comes to my own safety. berlin makes me feel insecure enough to want to carry a gun.
of course i know that thing would overall be worse if these criminals had a gun too. im highly ambivalent on all this. but overall, i want to be able to defend myself. because the police and the whole state fails on crime prevention.
you can laugh about my wish to feel safe now all you want.
On July 22 2012 07:18 StarcraftGuy4U wrote:I think a person must have very low self esteem if they think that by putting on a uniform a police officer has better judgement and is more qualified to defend their life than they are. I think it's a mentality thing, when I am confronted by danger I think "How can I protect myself in this moment?" but I get the feeling other people think "what can the government do to protect other people in the future after I am a newspaper headline and a teamliquid thread"
because policemen are never rtained in the way to disarm the bad guy and protect the innocent, theyre just as clueless as you.
what??
I dont think many people think clearly when shots are getting fired
On July 22 2012 08:14 Saryph wrote: Having 30 people in the theatre pulling out handguns at the first gunshots would have likely resulted in a lot more deaths.
When you look around, with gun in hand, and hear gunshots going off, and see people in the room with gun in hand, many people (remember these are common citizens, not soldiers or police with training) are going to panic when they see someone pointing a gun in their general vicinity.
No one will know who is someone trying to protect themself, and who is an accomplice to the gunner.
It was a horrible tragedy, and I wish we would have some sort of system of required training or testing in order to purchase certain or even all firearms. If a drivers license requires written and practical testing, a license for a weapon designed with killing in mind should as well.
I will agree with one thing though, even if the second ammendment was repealed (I'm not saying that I support this or not) I don't see how you could practically get the guns out of the country. There are so many in the surrounding countries, and there are hundreds of millions of guns in this country, many unregistered.
On the otherhand, all of the people saying worrying that at any moment the government will become some regime that is killing the people, requiring its citizens to take up arms against it, or that China/Iran is about to invade....you seem disconnected from reality.
Those things that happen to supposedly be disconnected from reality are a possibility. They are unlikely, this does not remove the possibility though.Except for this,governments have and can actually turn against its people. This has happened in history before and the best example would be the genocide done by Hitler(granted it was only the jews and people helping the jews).
So you belittling of people that supposedly are disconnected from reality regardless of whether I support their arguments is meaningless. Mathematically these people who are supposedly disconnected from reality apparently have a better brain than you.
Now the theatre thing, how the hell would you know? You are coming up with theories that are not supported by any professional. Are you saying due to the nature of theatres it would be bad? Are you saying it would always be bad? This is why i think your such an arrogant asshole for even thinking that you can just mindlessly say that people need a reality check.
On July 22 2012 08:03 decker247777 wrote: Well this topic has been discussed and the general consensus is that rules only prevent law abiding citizens from owning guns. Since criminals are not law abiding citizens, they will get the guns regardless of any rules and regulations.
General consensus? I've stated my argument countless of times, not any response from pro-guns. With gun control like in Europe, not any crack addict has a guns. Only big guys have them, and they use it to shoot other criminals, not law abiding citizens. Because all they are interested in is money. + Those high profile criminals have interest in keeping the number of guns low, and all of them in their own hands.
So yes some criminals will still have access to guns, but those criminals are the less dangerous for the law-abiding citizens.
It will be a hard path for the US, but by progressive stricter gun control it can get to the point where most of the other developed countries are.
Oh excuse me person from fucking europe. General consensus in America. Are you happy now?
On July 22 2012 07:00 Warlike Prince wrote: 1 armed citizen in the theater could have saved so many lives
Yes, that's very accurate. An unarmed citizen is a victim who hasn't been victimized yet. If a concealed carrying law abiding citizen had been in that theater the casualties would have been single digit.
The police arrived within NINETY SECONDS of receiving the APB. How much faster could they possibly have been? Still 54 people injured (overall response time indicates a 5 minute approximately delay between first shot, first 911 call, APB, police arrival on scene). The police are not there to protect you, they are there to catch and punish the person after you and 53 of your friends get shot at a movie theater.
I think a person must have very low self esteem if they think that by putting on a uniform a police officer has better judgement and is more qualified to defend their life than they are. I think it's a mentality thing, when I am confronted by danger I think "How can I protect myself in this moment?" but I get the feeling other people think "what can the government do to protect other people in the future after I am a newspaper headline and a teamliquid thread"
its not about if you trust yourself to make a good call in a high pressure situation with a lethal weapon
its about if you trust the dumbest guy in the room to do the same
On July 22 2012 08:19 Oroboros wrote: this issue is really a tough one and i honestly cant understand who people can laugh about others arguments so easily.
i know that societies without any guns would be preferable. but as long as i live in a society, where scenes like these:
almost happen on a daily basis, i wanna be able to defend myself where the police does not. i just dont like being a nice victim to beat for everyone. yeah sure, its not likely, that this does happen to me. but i pretty much dont care too much about statistics when it comes to my own safety. berlin makes me feel insecure enough to want to carry a gun.
of course i know that thing would overall be worse if these criminals had a gun too. im highly ambivalent on all this. but overall, i want to be able to defend myself. because the police and the whole state fails on crime prevention.
you can laugh about my wish to feel safe now all you want.
statistics show that by owning a gun the chances are greater that you yourself will face mortal danger, whether it be through being overpowered by a gang and then shot with your own weapon, or by general changes in law making it easier for 'bad guys' to get guns, escalating the violence may make you feel safer, but infact achieves the opposite.
At the end of the article, one of the perps was interviewed. During the interview he said; “I never expected anyone to be armed.” DING DING DING DING. . . . .Deterrent Alert: “he never expected anyone to be armed.”
Where is the harm in outlawing guns. We all know that having a gun significantly increases the chance that you die by gunfire. The only valid argument I've heard is that it's (debatably) a right to own a gun. But lot's of rights change through time. I believe US culture is too different form European for me to have an accurate image of how it could be. But where's the harm in trying. I couldn't possibly get worse when people aren't allowed to have guns so why not.
At the end of the article, one of the perps was interviewed. During the interview he said; “I never expected anyone to be armed.” DING DING DING DING. . . . .Deterrent Alert: “he never expected anyone to be armed.”
So a guy opens fire in a crowded place and doesn't even get prosecuted. How could he have known that he doesn't hit an innocent bywalker? Why do people think that because criminals break the law by threatening with guns that they should be allowed to shoot them too?
On July 22 2012 09:28 Sjokola wrote: Where is the harm in outlawing guns. We all know that having a gun significantly increases the chance that you die by gunfire. The only valid argument I've heard is that it's (debatably) a right to own a gun. But lot's of rights change through time. I believe US culture is too different form European for me to have an accurate image of how it could be. But where's the harm in trying. I couldn't possibly get worse when people aren't allowed to have guns so why not.
Smoking increases risk of lung cancer, eating unhealthy foods is bad for you, drinking alcohol makes you make bad decisions, the list goes on. In terms of doing dangerous and stupid things that harm yourself, or increase the risk of harming yourself, it should not be up to the law to remove those things because you can not regulate stupidity or self destructiveness without being a police state. Prohibiting something that's bad for people has been tried in the past with alcohol, which had quite a disastrous effect. I think if you try to do that with guns you would end up with similar things, except instead of speakeasies you end up with unregistered guns, instead of moonshine, you get homemade guns without proper safeties, etc. Banning guns is pretty much off the table in terms of an option for me, the retaliation from the opposition would be too extreme.
EPT
