General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsif this guy walked into a theater loaded with knives only...
...at most one or two would be dead.
Don't tell me "guns don't kill people".
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)
Kingofalldems
(40,277 posts)
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Duck!
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)nt
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)
Curtland1015
(4,404 posts)What did I miss?
GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)
So you're saying three guns walked into a theater and opened fire, then.
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)That's a fact.
Response to scheming daemons (Reply #5)
GarroHorus This message was self-deleted by its author.
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)That's the gun laws I want.
GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)Good luck with that, skippy.
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)Lots of ways to limit the types of guns people can own without repeal.
This guy wasn't using hunting rifles.
GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)You aren't up on SCOTUS precedent on gun laws, are you?
spanone
(141,609 posts)GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)Fully automatic weapons are illegal to own without very special licensing for collectors.
There was no machine gun used in this killing spree.
so your statement is blatantly ignorant on its face.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)How many would be in morgues from a crossbow rampage? Actually, guns are for cowards. Cowards wanna kill without being physically engaged with their targets. Heh - even the precious religion of "hunting". You want adventure? Go wrestle that buck, or bear to the ground - or snatch that pheasant as it flies. NOW you're a "sportsman".
GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)says it all. 
snooper2
(30,151 posts)LOL..
I was like 13 or so and we wrestled down a little hill into the creek...
We were like eye-to-eye and I had one horn and a front leg and he finally let me take him back up to the barn area
Both of us soaking wet 
bongbong
(5,436 posts)Until the repig SCOTUS decided Heller, overturning decades of precedent, the 2nd Amendment was held to be a "group right".
Again, the gun-relgionists are factually wrong. I wonder why gun-religion makes their worshippers so deprived of fact?
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)No, you just read the "well regulated militia" part over and over.
Republican hate regulations so they may just repeal it for that.
Get that dirty word out of the Constitution!.
Dokkie
(1,688 posts)London in particular is the biggest police state in the world. Between the CCTV cameras watching your every move and the police having the authority to stop and search you at will, so if this is serious question, the answer is YESS!!!
Response to scheming daemons (Reply #8)
Post removed
DanTex
(20,709 posts)GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)Gun grabbers like you can't get NRA out of their minds.
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)Which is 100% true, based on the viewpoint you have.
GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)I have not a single friend in the NRA, that makes you a liar.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)You are certainly aligning with their positions.
GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)and I don't own a single firearm.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)FWIW.
LibGranny
(711 posts)a "lurker". The gun used was a gun for killing people - not for any kind of sport hunting!
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)Easy to say such things when you have the shield of anonymity.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)you will change your stance? You don't need to respond. The answer is depressingly obvious.
GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)You are NOT going to take away guns from every nut. If he was never in the mental health system or was never a felon, you MUST err on the side of freedom.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)
1gobluedem
(6,664 posts)Thank you.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Please go pontificate to them, let us know how that works out.
whopis01
(3,919 posts)I agree with the concept of erring on the side of freedom. However that doesn't mean that a course of inaction is the correct one.
It seems to me that too often people react to this type of event by saying "we need to get rid of guns" and then are countered by people who say "guns aren't the problem / we have a right to firearms / etc". Then the discussion turns into an argument about gun control rather than trying to address the actual problem.
One group puts forth the idea that getting rid of guns would solve the problem. Maybe they are right, maybe they are not. But then it always seems to turn into an argument about just that idea and rarely are any other potential solutions put forth.
I know that earlier in the thread you said "enforce the laws that are in place" (or something close to that effect). What laws aren't being enforced in this situation that could have helped prevent it? And if there aren't any, what could be done?
You are correct that we must err on the side of freedom - but that doesn't mean the way things are being done is the best possible way of handling them. And changing how things are done doesn't mean that we are taking freedom away.
It is important to protect freedom - but that doesn't mean that we should only care about the freedom of the survivors. A lot of people lost their freedom last night in Colorado.
intheflow
(30,179 posts)As evidenced by the fact that this maniac was able to get not only an automatic weapon but also riot gear and tear gas canisters.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)"riot gear"? What exactly do you mean by that?
intheflow
(30,179 posts)riot helmet, bullet proof vest, protection over his neck, arms and legs. Automatic, semi-automatic. Stop with the bullshit gungeon semantics. He was able to get 60-80 shots fired off within a minute, that's fucking automatic enough for me.
secondvariety
(1,245 posts)News to me. I figured it was pretty much anything goes.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)See, people like him, they truly believe that their toy shooters are the thin line dividing us from North Korea.
In other words, they're fucking idiots.
Tennessee Gal
(6,160 posts)How can anyone deny that?
And the NRA fights any attempt to make access to them more difficult.
No one wants a police state. No one wants to take away guns for personal protection or hunting.
However, how can anyone support easy access to many, many guns or assault weapons?
highplainsdem
(62,137 posts)Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)There are probably in excess of 5 to 10 million of them in private hands in the United States.
If you want to elect Republicans, by all means push for a ban on "assault" weapons.
xmas74
(30,058 posts)I live in a state where guns are as common as ticks-they're everywhere.
I don't want to take away guns, even though I don't own any. I believe it's fine to own a handgun for protection and that's it's great if you want to own a rifle or a good old shotgun-they're great for hunting and if you have livestock they might be needed to protect them. What I have a problem with is the variety of weapons available for no good reason.
I also believe that, in order to own a weapon, you must take a safety course. To me that just makes good sense.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)What weapons are those, and what reasons would you find acceptable?
xmas74
(30,058 posts)I live next to a military base, in an area full of hunters. Most will tell you that the majority guns that are sought after by the collectors to fill their arsenals have no real practical use in hunting or even in personal protection. Around here, if someone finds out your collecting, then you will be their first target for a break-in. It's pretty common to read in the paper about the gun collectors who leave for an afternoon of grocery shopping, only to come home and find they've been robbed.
I'm fine with hunting rifles-basic hunting rifles. I'm also fine with handguns. It's the rest I'm not overjoyed with, to the point that I don't allow my child in homes with them.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)the AK in original caliber is ballistically almost identical to the .30-30 lever-action rifle, an excellent deer gun.
In some locations, the AR-15 is legal for hunting, but most states consider it too small a caliber, i.e. not powerful enough.
Semi-auto hunting rifles have been around for over a century.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)All crimes with long-guns together make up less than 3% of crime with guns.
You can look these stats up on the Dept. of Justice website.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Name a nation that has a higher percentage of its citizens incarcerated...
CTyankee
(68,201 posts)Breathtaking leap of logic!
Confusious
(8,317 posts)Maybe you can lobby for your right to an RPG or M1 Abrams next.
Iggy
(1,418 posts)discussion (banning guns/ammo) there IS an answer. but people have to realize it can be done
D23MIURG23
(3,138 posts)To have a police state in which many of his citizens owned assault rifles. It might be easier to oppress an unarmed populace than an armed one, but the police and military will always outgun the populace.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)There about 100 million firearms in the hands of the public (about one gun for every three people) and no politician I am aware of has ever even suggested passing a law to take even one of them away from anyone. The most extreme suggestion I've ever heard is that dealers should keep accurate records of what and to whom they sell guns (like car dealerships but without any licensing provisions) and that they shouldn't sell weapons to crazy people or felons. Not much there too get hysterical about actually.
Skittles
(171,709 posts)YOU ARE SO FUCKING PARANOID!!!!!!!!!!!!
Response to Skittles (Reply #166)
GarroHorus This message was self-deleted by its author.
Curtland1015
(4,404 posts)Use it.
Otherwise, legal or not, if someone REALLY wants to get a gun, they WILL get a gun.
It's a tragedy what happened. No one is arguing that. But guns aren't going to not exist just because they can be used to hurt people.
GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)
grahampuba
(169 posts)And if anyone thinks they can stuff him back in there, they are kidding themselves.
Im occasionally idealistic, but to think we can get guns off the streets with the swipe of a pen. never.
Not to make light of the issue, but if anything, the Chris Rock solution. Increase the price of ammo.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)What happens if 10 magazines were carried? 10x10=100.
Or 7x10=70.
Consider lever action rifles or shotguns; both reload easily and quickly and the magazine is fixed.
D23MIURG23
(3,138 posts)Because I'd be willing to bet the (loaded) phrase "Assault Weapon" could be more accurately be rewritten to "handguns". One thing that frustrates me about this debate is that most gun crime seems to be handgun crime, and usually the debate seems to center around whether civilians should be able to possess an AK-47.
I would think a debate about whether concealed weapons should ever be legal, and whether civilians should be able to possess handguns specifically, would be much more relevant to public policy.
Skinner
(63,645 posts)FYI.
GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)FYI.
Skinner
(63,645 posts)Keep it up. 
SaveAmerica
(5,342 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)That's almost as bad as talking about offshore drilling safety after the Deepwater Horizon explosion!
How tacky! What's really important is that we do absolutely nothing about guns, thereby guaranteeing that tens of thousands of people continue to die every year from gun violence.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)
Ruby the Liberal
(26,664 posts)Unfortunately, not before he shot 62 people.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Good for you.
GarroHorus
(1,055 posts) Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Good for you, you represent your fellow fetishistas so well.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)But guns, just killing.
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)1. box cutters and ceramic knives
2. 2,715 people dead
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)Lots of things that have another purpose can be used to commit murder.
But guns have NO other purpose. It is their primary purpose to kill people.
GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)Good luck with that, skippy.
tnvoter
(257 posts)scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)... their conscience knows that there position is illogical and indefensible.
When you can't win the argument on merit, you resort to name calling.
Every time he calls me "skippy", he is subconsciously admitting defeat.
barbtries
(31,308 posts)because his use of the word skippy was getting on my nerves.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)I realize the arguement is lost every time the name "gun nut" is thrown out there.
Same applies to people who change the subject and start correcting grammer and spelling.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)I wouldn't mind so much if they did not have an irrational fixation that equates having sex with penetrating flesh with a bullet.
If only their penises worked, they wouldn't have to stroke an object designed exclusively to kill and maim their neighbors, at least a penis is less lethal, and can create children when used in a positive and consensual mating application.
We should have a Viagra for gun exchange program, that may keep my stalkers from trying to shoot ole Skippy, unarmed sexual deviants are easier to protect against.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)People like you need to realize you will end up being your own worst enemy. When the backlash comes, and if these types of shootings keep happening, a backlash will come, then drastic changes will happen with gun ownership. When the tipping point is reached no compromise people like yourself and the NRA will be kicked out of the way like a bad puppy.
As a gun owner myself, you are what scares me, with your uncompromising ways, you will be the one that costs me the use of my guns.
No one will "take" your guns away nor will they stop you from using them. But there are many ways to make their use less convenient.
Kingofalldems
(40,277 posts)And I am not deceived by your icon.
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)Sadly enough there are plenty of examples to the contrary.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)And this guy had enough in his apartment to kill dozens.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)with some 300 million guns in civilian ownership, if their "primary purpose" was actually "to kill people", they are horribly inefficient or poorly used.
thucythucy
(9,103 posts)and a ceramic knife onto a plane, no hassle, no fuss, no bother? You be sure to try that the next time you go to board a flight, and see what happens.
If you're going to use 9-11 as an analogy, you might want to think it through to see if the analogy works in your favor. In this case it clearly doesn't, since, if memory serves me well, the response was to ban box-cutters and ceramic knives (and lots of other things) from airliners.
So, following your analogy, are you proposing a ban on firearms in all theatres?
BTW: it was't just the box-cutters and knives that were used to commit all that carnage. I would argue that several airliners moving at hundreds of miles per hour, along with tens of thousands of gallons of aviation fuel, also had their part to play in the atrocity.
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)Box cutters and knives were already banned on commercial airplanes, as they should be.
It wasn't an analogy, it was an example which disproves the theory that banning guns will stop this stuff.
Many things are just as deadly or more deadly, than guns.
thucythucy
(9,103 posts)on airliners, but not guns in movie theatres? Because banning box cutters and knives on airliners "is as it should be" but banning guns in theatres, not?
One of the arguments of those who oppose any sort of gun restriction after an event like this is--it won't work. People will cirumvent the control, so therefore it's useless to even try.
People circumvented the ban on box cutters and knives on airliners to commit 9-11, yet I didn't hear a single person say, "See, box cutter control on airliners doesn't work, let's scrap the whole idea." Instead, controls got tighter.
BTW, I'm not arguing for banning guns in theatres--political impossibility, probably a practical one as well. Though if theatres, restaurants, bars etc., started offering "gun free environments" the way some used to offer "smoke free environments" I'd go there, especially if I was taking children. Walking through a metal detector would be worth it to me, if it meant less chance of the children in my family being gunned down by some wacko, or shot in a cross-fire.
Just my opinion, is all.
malaise
(296,098 posts)
Tennessee Gal
(6,160 posts)Why does any law abiding citizen need an AK47?
JonLP24
(29,929 posts)I personally wouldn't recommend it because it is inaccurate at long distances however it should be fine for moderate ranges.
I wouldn't get hung up on the image of it as a military rifle, there are many "hunting" rifles more powerful than an AK-47.
Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)Assuming that in this context we define "powerful" as the muzzle energy of the cartridge used by by firearm in question.
Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)Given that I personally own around a hundred, I'm curious...
DaveJ
(5,023 posts)My understanding is that over 200 years, when towns were smaller, if anyone amassed guns, that person was known in the community.
Today, any automaton can have a personal arsenal and nobody would ever know until it's too late. They can walk into a theater, have some popcorn, and let loose before anyone knew what hit them.
But people are scared of tracking via technology. People are scared of technology in general. It was ok when everyone gossiped about one another and estranged one another, but they think technology is wicked.
Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)Interesting assertion. My understanding is that over 200 years, if anyone amassed guns the general reaction (if it somehow became known) would be "So what?".
Today, any automaton can have a personal arsenal
Define "arsenal", please.
People are scared of technology in general.
Given the popularity of social media which by definition involve cutting edge technology, I disagree wholeheartedly.
DaveJ
(5,023 posts)People often make assumptions about what I'm saying, because I assume they are able to accurately read what I type.
When I say "people are scared" it does not mean the same thing as "everyone is scared". When I said "any automaton can have an arsenal" it is not to say "you have an arsenal." So your questions are entirely separate from any point I was trying to make. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Those seem like rhetorical questions anyway so I guess it's not important to answer them.
As far as your 4 guns, I'm not concerned about them, but I think they should be tracked and inventoried, just for starters. There should be devices setup in public places that can detect guns as well.
So I would like to ask, since you say people are not scared of technology, does that mean that you would support better gun tracking technology?
Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)Let me assure you that my questions are not rhetorical. Given that, would you please do me the courtesy of answering them?
As far as your 4 guns,
More in the ballpark of a hundred, actually.
but I think they should be tracked and inventoried, just for starters.
I disagree.
There should be devices setup in public places that can detect guns as well.
There already are. They're called "metal detectors", and are prevalent in such areas as courts, airports, etc.
So I would like to ask, since you say people are not scared of technology, does that mean that you would support better gun tracking technology?
A supposed fear of technology has nothing to do with the issue at hand...and in any case, the answer is "No".
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)How paranoid must one be (or obsessed in an unhealthy manner) to feel they need more guns than my local police sub-station has on hand to feel safe?
You scare the hell out of me and I hope for the sake of your community you see someone capable of diagnosing and helping you.
Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)a symptom of mental disease.
If that's the case, at what point in one's hobby of collecting does mental illness kick in? Is it all right to have 18 guns, but when the 19th gun is purchased it's time to check into the local mental health clinic?
I would really like an answer.
You scare the hell out of me and I hope for the sake of your community you see someone capable of diagnosing and helping you.
Why? What actions do you anticipate I'm going to take that will harm the community? Please, be specific.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)I fear the day when you feel it is time to use your stockpile.
As for how many? That is a question you need to ask a professional used to dealing with hoarding conditions (or paranoia in many cases of weapons stock-pilling).
How many pizza boxes and old soda jugs in a one room apartment is evidence of a mental disorder? not my specialty, but at a point it becomes apparent there is a problem, ofttimes filling the entire apartment is considered a symptom.
Stockpiling over a hundred weapons is cause for concern, do you planning on arming a large cell or are you a loner that is quiet and keeps to himself, I am not sure if I am dealing with a Karesh or a militant loner.
It is not normal dude, it is rather scary, it is extremely dangerous to your community for a member to stockpile so many weapons.
What do you think you need to prepare so obsessively for? Are you a survivalist or something?
Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)I actually only go to the shooting range a couple of times a year, if that.
We're not talking "Hoarders", here. All the guns fit in a half-dozen gun safes (three of which are rather small pistol safes) and the ammo fits in a closet. My book collection takes up more space.
As for what I plan to use the weapons for...I plan on retiring in about 5 years. At that point, I will slowly sell off the vast majority of the collection over the course of 15 years or so and use the money to travel around the world. Based on their value, I estimate I can take at least a couple of domestic vacations as well as at least one international vacation each year.
So...still "scary"?
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)It would be scary if I thought there may be different reasons for your stockpiling of weapons, I doubt you would tell me if you did.
I find swords interesting to collect, but have only found four worthy hand crafted pieces in twenty years, One hand folded by a Japanese master is worth the price of a car, perhaps you are wealthy enough to afford 100 collectable pieces and they are all hand crafted pieces of art.
Or perhaps they are like hundreds of thousands of others and it is more like a stockpile.
I don't really know do I?
Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)of being collected?
My collection is aimed towards WW2 and earlier civilian and military handguns. I try to only collect firearms that are in good to excellent condition, and most have a value in the range of $500 to $1000. There are exceptions that are worth somewhat more, of course...and the accessories such as holsters and extra magazines can sometimes be worth as much and the gun in question!
Or perhaps they are like hundreds of thousands of others and it is more like a stockpile.
I don't really know do I?
No you don't...and even if they are:
So what?
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)It was pretty interesting.
Historical pieces are collectibles. They also will increase in value over time. I still think you are a bit obsessive about your hobby, but I can understand it now. I thought you were one of those guys that goes to gun shows to buy shitloads of arms for nefarious reasons. I apologize for that, in context, antiques would not be the first choice of such scary and lethal endeavors.
Enjoy your collection and keep them oiled, rust is the enemy of all metal objects whether sword or antique gun, I know it is hard enough to keep my few pieces safe from pitting, I can only imagine how much work it must take to look after so many pieces.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)are big money. A regulated militia in colonial times is not the equivalent of today's homemade terrorist sitting in on a stash of military grade weapons in his basement. And you know the goddamned media will never touch this elephant in the room right now.
Tennessee Gal
(6,160 posts)You stated it well.
malaise
(296,098 posts)
Javaman
(65,711 posts)
Renew Deal
(85,150 posts)scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)Because of the element of surprise.
And likely, the resulting crossfires would've killed even more.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Or did you forget the sarcasm tag?
progressivebydesign
(19,458 posts)Having a room full of armed people wouldn't have changed things much.. he was in armor, and HE knew what he was doing. Most of the people had no idea what was going on until it was over.
An armed society is not a safer or polite society.
Comrade_McKenzie
(2,526 posts)If people just want them for "safety," then they surely don't need BUCKETS of ammo in their houses.
No one needs to be mindlessly firing automatic weapons at targets anyway, and you sure as hell don't use them to hunt.
Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)I haven't seen any evidence that the shooter in question was using a fully automatic weapon. Link, please?
And in any case, the majority of gun owners don't hunt. Not surprising, given that the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting...
Javaman
(65,711 posts)“You don’t need no gun control, you know what you need? We need some bullet control. Men, we need to control the bullets, that’s right. I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars… five thousand dollars per bullet… You know why? Cause if a bullet cost five thousand dollars there would be no more innocent bystanders.
Yeah! Every time somebody get shut we’d say, ‘Damn, he must have done something ... Shit, he’s got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ass.’
And people would think before they killed somebody if a bullet cost five thousand dollars. ‘Man I would blow your fucking head off…if I could afford it.’ ‘I’m gonna get me another job, I’m going to start saving some money, and you’re a dead man. You’d better hope I can’t get no bullets on layaway.’
So even if you get shot by a stray bullet, you wouldn't have to go to no doctor to get it taken out. Whoever shot you would take their bullet back, like "I believe you got my property.”
― Chris Rock
CTyankee
(68,201 posts)"Shit, he’s got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ass."
Comrade_McKenzie
(2,526 posts)4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)is going to be deterred by fear of next months credit card bill.
barbtries
(31,308 posts)agree.
redroof
(24 posts)RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)to do this type of thing. They have to be protected. Well if that man hadn't been there they wouldn't have been protected. These anti gunners are as nuts as the those that own many assault weapons. You can only shoot two at a time.
thucythucy
(9,103 posts)and set off a smoke grenade in a darkened theatre. Maybe fewer people might have been killed.
Maybe more people would have died in the cross fire.
Difficult to know.
Brewinblue
(392 posts)the gun apologists that claim otherwise truly make me sick!
And, to those who scream 2nd Amendment, it gives the public the right to well regulated, armed militias (think local police), not the right of every nut to privately own their own murdering devices.
RC
(25,592 posts)Where is this "well regulated militia" the Constitution speaks of? How often do they meet and train? Having a gun does not automatically make anyone a member of any militia, regulated or not. Being a member of the NRA does not in any way make you a member of a militia either. The NRA is nothing more than the propaganda arm of the gun manufactures/gun runners (Money, Money, Money) and those fascinated with killing and death.
With sane gun laws in this country, the NRA would have trouble existing in its present form and the high profit gun running this country engages in wherever we gin up a hot spot for fun and profit, would not happen nearly as often.
xmas74
(30,058 posts)Go join the National Guard-they'd probably be glad to have most of the gun owners.
That's always been one of my biggest arguments about gun ownership-the well regulated militia. I don't mind a handgun for personal protection and maybe a rifle or shotgun for hunting-that's their personal preference. I do know this: every damn time someone starts collecting or stockpiling weapons in this area, someone finds out, cases their house, waits for them to leave, and then breaks in. Now all those weapons are on the street somewhere.
I've always thought if someone wanted to get their hands on some decent weaponry they could join the military. Anything else should be pared down. I have plenty of hunter friends who will tell you that less is more.
Paladin
(32,354 posts).....in that SC decision that read as if it was drafted by the NRA.
xmas74
(30,058 posts)I have no problems with gun ownership. What I have a problem with are people who have no training whatsoever with guns and with people who stockpile guns.
Stockpiling-why? There's no reason for it, unless you plan on personally supplying your entire village for the upcoming zombie invasion.
Training-it just makes sense. A person should have to take numerous hours in gun safety before they are allowed to have a gun. They can pay for the classes or just join the Guards, become a volunteer deputy, etc, as a way to obtain free training.
I don't want to take away guns. All I want is for the guns to be in the hands of people who actually know what they do and how to use them in a relatively safe manner.
Iggy
(1,418 posts)look, this is academic.
this perp obv intended to kill numerous people. he walked into a public place armed with a rifle
(probably automatic or semi) a shotgun and two pistols.
there IS an answer to this bullcrap, and it's not "getting rid of guns" or limiting ammo
LiberalArkie
(19,804 posts)after all.
spartan61
(2,091 posts)I just don't understand why so many people think they should be armed and able to go into public places with their weapons. The last time I checked, there was no deer hunting in these types of places. Another tragic happening in our country. I absolutely HATE guns!
Daemonaquila
(1,712 posts)Someone with knives, if he had some training and thought it through, could have done as much harm. Or he could have decided to go the bomb route. Or started a fire. All of these things could potentially do more harm. People kill people. Not tools.
valerief
(53,235 posts)NS2012
(74 posts)There are a lot of responsible NRA members who didn't massacre any crowds of people last night.
The blame in this case can't be assigned to the NRA, Rush Limbaugh, society, etc. The blame can only be assigned to this fucked-up individual.
Hissyspit
(45,790 posts)it's not.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100608233114AA6P1l5
3.6 per 100,000
US Total Murder Rate Per Capita:
4.2802 per 100,000 people
Canada Gun Assisted Murders Per Capita:
0.4 per 100,000
Canada Total Murder Rate Per Capita:
1.49063 per 100,000 people
Japan Gun Assisted Murders Per Capita:
0.05 per 100,000
Japan Total Murder Rate Per Capita:
0.499933 per 100,000 people
These stats are taken between 2006 and 2008. There is some margin of error but these are the basic figures / differences.
Above we see the US, a country with few gun controls having the highest amount of gun murders and overall murders. Canada, a country with much tighter gun laws sitting in the middle, and Japan, a country with only 15 legal guns in the country (for Olympics training), having extremely low gun murder rates and overall murder rates.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2005/06/28/gun-deaths050628.html
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm
UK Total Murder Rate:
1.40633 per 100,000 people
Can't find gun deaths, but no matter it's obviously already much lower than the US.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita"
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/12/4/gpr120402.html
In a country such as Uganda, about 300,000 abortions take place each year, notwithstanding the fact that abortion is legal only to save a woman's life. Unsafe abortion there is a leading cause of pregnancy-related death. Moreover, at current rates, half of all Ugandan women will require treatment for complications related to abortion at some point in their lives.
The Heavy Toll of Unsafe Abortion
The fact is that almost all unsafe abortions occur in the developing world (see chart). According to the World Health Organization, unsafe abortion is the cause of 70,000 maternal deaths each year—or one in eight pregnancy-related deaths among women. That translates to seven women per hour. Approximately eight million more women per year suffer postabortion complications that can lead to short- or long-term consequences, including anemia, prolonged weakness, chronic inflammation of the reproductive tract and secondary infertility. Of the women who experience serious complications each year, nearly three million never receive treatment."
valerief
(53,235 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)Made from ingredients easily available at your local Wal Mart, even more people would have been killed.
It isn't guns, it is our sick society.
Beefing up gun control is only treating a symptom, it doesn't get rid of the disease.
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)Someone hit the nail on the head. Yes, it IS our sick society. There are other Countries with gun control laws - or a lack thereof, very similar to our own or even more open. The murder rate here still remains supreme, as far as I know.
In psychology, the use of anti-depressant and anti-anxiety medications commonly goes towards treating the symptoms. Someone with severe panic attacks or depression is given a prescription after what is usually a fairly brief meeting with a physician, whether psychiatrist or family practitioner. The follow ups aren't really necessary (other than as general check ups for medication refills) therapy is suggested, but rarely ever mandated. So the symptoms are treated with varying degrees of success, but the illness itself remains stagnant. This is an example of WHY someone might go on a shooting rampage. Yes it's terrible, yes it's sick.. so is our society.
If we want to improve things here in America, it needs to start from the bottom up. Screw the NRA in any event. If we can do something about poverty, if we can be more successful in treating illness and allowing others access to care... if we can somehow reclaim our media from the power mongers that have seized control of it... then maybe in the process we'll actually do something about crime, about murder, even about gun control.
Is it really hard to understand why things like this happen? Hey... you've depressed? Here's some Zoloft, give it about three weeks and if you don't start drooling in public, or suddenly become a homicidal maniac or drop dead... and if you see some improvement in your symptoms... well then, we'll know it's working!
Want to go hunting? Okay... here you go, AK 47 is definitely necessary for the hunting of deer. You want to whack a coyote with an elephant rifle? No problem!
It's not so much the lack of gun control, in itself. It's the lack of responsibility, the lack of forethought, the handing out of dangerous things without concern for the potential consequences. Our education is continuing to fail our youth - who is to blame for this is open for debate. Our health care system needs a make over, for all those lucky (or unlucky) enough to have access to it through insurance.
Our system of government is corrupt beyond all belief, our media is owned by the rich, for the rich and of the rich. We can fight about gun control until we're blue in the face, but if we can't start from the ground up, gun control would accomplish nothing more than to annoy people.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)We need to realize that there are always going to be crazy people out there - for whatever reason. While we are arguing about why society makes these people crazy, can we at least agree that a lot of people need to be institutionalized?
GaYellowDawg
(5,101 posts)If you treat a symptom, you do make the disease less likely to do harm.
Yeah, this guy - especially given his education - could very easily have assembled a bomb or a chemical agent. Instead, all he had to do was buy the guns at the local Wal-Mart. It was effortless for him. Why not make the next sick son of a bitch have to work for it a little?
flamingdem
(40,891 posts)Bullshit that this guy would have done it with knives or made a homemade bomb.
It's the fetishistic attachment to guns and their ease of use for instant gratification at work here.
D23MIURG23
(3,138 posts)My brother in law is a gun nut who owns about 8 assault rifles and loads his own ammunition. He uses these to kill groundhogs on his parents' farmland. He has not killed any people, and neither do most people who "fetishize" guns.
And bullshit to the idea that you know what this mass murderer who the OP was responding to, would have done if guns were not available to him.
flamingdem
(40,891 posts)Other societies do NOT suffer from this malaise.
I believe strongly that this bully, mentally ill or not, was about the pure pleasure of using those guns and the ease of pulling the trigger for a sense of power he craved.
It's a mentality that has developed in this country and it is fueled by the NRA and the teaparty types.
As social beings if it was not acceptable it would be curtailed. The NRA facilitates murder.
D23MIURG23
(3,138 posts)flamingdem
(40,891 posts)I don't need no f'ng citation
D23MIURG23
(3,138 posts)I'll leave you with a quote:
" For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
H. L. Mencken
I guess you've found yours.
Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)I'm sick of this shit. Unless you're all alone on a lonely mountaintop, surrounded by rabid coyotes, you don't need a gun. This is modern times. We are living all crowded up on top of each other and where there are guns, they tend to go off.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)JamesHolmes154
Edweird
(8,570 posts)Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Non-Gun Mass Murders (worldwide):
By no means is this a complete list. I have focused on 2008, and NOT included the majority of terrorist attacks in recent times, most of which involve car bombs (London), attaché bombs on trains (Madrid), the Sarin gas attack in Tokyo, etc. (and in fact almost all modern terrorist attacks are done without guns for the reasons of efficiency stated above).
Arson, Stabbing Rampage in Seoul South Korea : 10/20/2008. 6 people dead, 5 from stabbing. 7 others wounded, 4 seriously. An angry man felt people “looked down on him.”
Anti-police stabbing spree in Shanghai, China: 7/2008. 6 Police Officers stabbed to death, 4 wounded. 28 year old man angry at police attacked a police station with a knife.
Akihabara Massacre, Chiyoda City, Tokyo, Japan: 6/8/2008. 7 people killed (3 struck by car, 4 by stabbing), many more injured. Man slammed into a crowd with his car, then jumped out and began stabbing people to death.
18 year old slashes 4 to death in Sitka, Alaska, US: 3/25/2008. 4 people killed. 18 year old (old enough to purchase a rifle over the counter) kills 4 people, related to him, with a 5 inch knife.
Stabbing Spree kills 2, Tsuchiura, Japan: 3/23/2008. 2 killed, 7 wounded. Man “just wanted to kill anyone.”
Stabbing spree wounds 41, 6 seriously in Berlin Train Station: 5/26/2006. 41 wounded, 6 seriously. Thankfully no one died in this attack, but not for lack of trying on the part of the drunk 16 year old.
4 killed in stabbing spree in London, UK: 9/2004. 4 killed, 2 wounded. Mentally ill man attacks mostly older people.
6 killed over Xbox dispute in Deltona, Florida, US: 8/6/2004. 6 killed. 4 men (all old enough to legally purchase firearms) bludgeon 6 people to death with baseball bats over purloined Xbox.
Daegu subway fire, Daegu, South Korea: 2/18/2003. 198 killed, 147 injured. A 56 year old unemployed taxi driver, dissatisfied with his medical treatment, sets fire to a crowded train.
Osaka School Massacre, Osaka Japan: 6/8/2001. 8 children dead, 13 other children and 2 teachers wounded. Committed by 37 year old former janitor armed with a kitchen knife.
Thankfully mass murders are extremely rare. There are 200 hundred million adults in the United States and only a few mass murders per year (any weapon). Per capita, I have seen statistics that claim Europe as a whole has fairly close to the same number of people murdered in mass murders as the US, though a far lower gun ownership rate and a far lower overall murder rate.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)He had come in throwing around gasoline and set the place on fire, while stabbing people, it also could have caused the same destruction and casualties.
The guy is obviously a nutjob. Nutjobs that want to commit mass murder usually find a way to do it. The UK has had its share of suicide bombers. Gun laws don't do anything against suicide bombers, either.
Mayflower1
(100 posts)he'd use a bomb.
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/09/man-stabbed-meat-thermometer-california-movie-theater/
The best comment I saw on these stories, after many questioned why anyone would take a meat thermometer to the movies, was from a guy who said he always carries one--'cause you never know when someone's gonna ask you if their meat is done.
This was at my local movie theater.
uppityperson
(116,020 posts)health care is severally needed.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)with the exception, imo, of spontaneous, heat-of-the-moment shoot-outs, which this wasn't. It appears premeditated and as though explosives was a real possibility.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)hundreds might be dead.
BanTheGOP
(1,068 posts)Yes, I said it. the GOP is the only reason the 2nd Amendment allows guns to be bought and used to kill people. The GOP needs to be held criminally responsible for the actions of Holmes, and must be made to disband under RICO statutes IMMEDIATELY.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)progressivebydesign
(19,458 posts)While countries with sane gun laws DO have rare acts of violence like this, the untold story is the 100 people that will die today in gun violence in America, just like every day here. But because it's not in a public place in a larger group, it doesn't seem horrific to people. If all 100 people who die on any given day in America in gun violence, along with the dozens wounded, happened in one incident, the flags would be lowered.. the campaigns would be silenced, etc. It's wrong.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)would you feel better had he brewed up a gas bomb from the castor beans growing in his back yard? How about poisoning food or drugs?
Firearms are our abortion issue. It's done. It's not going to change any time soon. Accept it and move on, isn't that the advice you constantly give regarding political obscenities committed by the Democratic Party?
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Trying to corral 300 million privately owned firearms in the hopes of saving 30 lives a year seems ineffective.
Legalize it, you'll save more lives.