12 Dead, 50 Injured at The Dark Knight Rises Showing In Colorado 1706
beaverdownunder sends the sad news that a gunman opened fire on an audience watching the new Batman movie early this morning, killing 12 and wounding 50 others. The shooting took place in Aurora, Colorado, and the suspect was arrested by police.
"Witnesses told KUSA that the gunman kicked in an emergency exit door and threw a smoke bomb into the darkened theater before opening fire. One movie-goer, who was not identified, told KUSA the gunman was wearing a gas mask. Some people in the audience thought the thick smoke and gunfire was a special effect accompanying the movie, police and witnesses said."
Get ready (Score:5, Insightful)
Pat downs and body scanners are coming to the movie theaters.
And you wonder why we have hate-based politics (Score:4, Insightful)
Straight to partisan blame? You've clearly found a tragedy to capitalize on.
Re:how 'bout some gun control... (Score:1, Insightful)
There would be shooting, but the shooter wouldn't have survived.
Re:Willing to bet.. (Score:4, Insightful)
If it's a right-wing nutjob, it's an incident. If it's a Muslim, it's terrorism.
Re:how 'bout some gun control... (Score:0, Insightful)
Sounds like he did have gun control. The gunman killed 14. But how 'bout some realism, eh? (sarcasm) Gun control is so effective... (/sarcasm)
What we need is idiot control. Not gun control. Stop coddling the morons and if they use a toaster in the bathtub? Too bad. We'd get rid of a bunch of idiots the old fashioned way... natural selection.
Re:Maybe same old 'leave your guns at entrance' ru (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, of course. Becuase had that movie theatre had a sign the gunman would have said "Shucks" and turned right around and found another theatre.
Re:how 'bout some gun control... (Score:1, Insightful)
"The Gun Is Civilization"
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society. But, a firearm makes it easier for an armed mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat - it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier, works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply would not work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...And that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act !!
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)
Re:Maybe same old 'leave your guns at entrance' ru (Score:5, Insightful)
How would the people in that audience being armed, in a dark theater, with fucking smoke from the smoke grenades he tossed in before he started shooting, have made much of a difference at all?
How long did this incident go on? A minute? According to CNN he killed 12 people (their revised figure) and wounded 50 more. Even Quick Draw McGraw wouldn't have been able to stop him from killing a few people. Those people would have died whether the audience was armed or not...
And as ever... (Score:5, Insightful)
While we can go to great lengths to guard against some types of security threat, we are reminded once again that the greatest risk is often from somebody who decides to take something lethal to a crowded place and do his worst with it.
People in the thread already engaging in partisan political speculation about motives relating to the film's plot or controversies surrounding it. Give it a rest, guys - too soon. It'll all come out in due course, but there's every chance it was nothing more than somebody with a random grievance picking a target area he knew would be crowded.
If you want attention (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Maybe same old 'leave your guns at entrance' ru (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Maybe same old 'leave your guns at entrance' ru (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you think someone who is planning to commit multiple murders is going to care about a rule telling them they shouldn't bring their gun in? or care about setting off a metal detector as they barge-in?
Rules against bringing guns in are probablly good at reducing the damage when a fight gets out of hand (which is presumablly why bars and pubs had them) but they aren't going to stop premeditated attacks (indeed they may make them easier because they mean the regulars will be unable to fight back).
Re:Maybe same old 'leave your guns at entrance' ru (Score:5, Insightful)
Your'e absolutely right. The entire audience should have been armed so that instead of one nutjob shooting there would also be tens or hundreds of people shooting wildly in all directions as they hear gunshots and see someone near them with a gun.
And all the bloodshed would have been avoided.
Re:how 'bout some gun control... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, they thought that shooting into a dark crowded theatre filled with smoke was far more stupid than just hiding under their seat.
Re:Maybe same old 'leave your guns at entrance' ru (Score:5, Insightful)
It should be noted that this didn't happen in a bar or pub.
It should also be noted that shooting people is illegal. If you're inclined to obey laws, then you won't shoot them, even if you have a gun. If you're not inclined to obey them, then you're going to be willing to acquire and use a gun in spite of it being illegal.
And finally, it should be noted that even including this incident, the murder rate in Colorado is lower than it is in Washington DC, where owning a firearm is essentially illegal....
Actually it should be noted that, ignoring RATE, there are more murders in Washington DC (population 600k or so) than in Colorado (population 5.1 million or so) in a typical year.
Re:Get http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/07/2ready (Score:4, Insightful)
Fire up the Gun Control! (Score:3, Insightful)
We need that quick fix! Blame the Guns! Thats the Answer!
Don't blame the Society that desires a movie that glorifies violence and subversive behavior!
Don't blame the School that grinds down the individual.
Don't blame the Friends that saw a lost person and walked away.
Don't blame the Parents that watched Wheel of Fortune instead of constructive activities.
Nah, it must be the tools.
Re:how 'bout some gun control... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a concealed carry permit, and do so on a daily basis. Assuming someone in the theater had a weapon on them, it would have been difficult for them to react safely. It's a crowded theater. I understand there was teargas involved. People would have been running around, screaming. Unless you happened to be within direct proximity to the gunman it would have been almost impossible to fire your weapon without hitting an innocent or three, and that would have prevented me personally.
Add to the fact that if you draw your weapon in a crowded theater with panic going on around you, you are automatically going to be assumed to the the gunman.
It's hard to judge without being there, but the best option for someone in that position quite likely would have been to stay low and return fire only if under direct threat.
Re:how 'bout some gun control... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Maybe same old 'leave your guns at entrance' ru (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt it, more than likely he burst in and started spraying wildly in the theater, probably within mere seconds, so even if half the people in that theater had been packing, they likely wouldn't have prevented anything. If anything, they probably would have increased the body count as they started shooting crazily in the dark and smoke filled theater (he threw a smoke grenade, remember? He was wearing a mask, the audience wasn't) and there probably would have been another half-dozen or so people killed.
Of the people I know who have a concealed carry license (we just got CC here in WI within the last year or so), only a handful have any real firearms handling experience, mostly through prior military service. Most everyone else just took the 4 hour course the state mandates. The fact that they're able to carry a firearm doesn't make me feel safer at all, and a few of the people actually scare me that they're legally allowed to carry concealed (stupid kids that think it makes them tough).
Re:Willing to bet.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Two points, one to the parent directly, and one to later commentary.
First, to the parent, considering the demographics of Colorado, yes, he probably was a right-wing nutjob. This does not, of course, imply that right-wing nutjobbery makes you more likely to be a mass murderer.
Second, to those who have already and will continue to claim that permissive concealed carry laws are ineffective in general because they were ineffective in this case: A crowded, dark movie theater, during an action scene is pretty much the second worst place you could possibly attempt a defensive shooting. You would be fairly unable to accurately identify your target, to clear the space in front of and behind him, to take aim or to prevent yourself from getting shot or harmed by others, police included, during or after the event. The worst, I think, would be a nightclub. So no, this neither affirms nor repudiates weapons ownership or carry, concealed or open, in any real way. You might as well take the Challenger as proof that man is never to leave terra firma.
Re:Maybe same old 'leave your guns at entrance' ru (Score:3, Insightful)
Umm... Would the name calling gentleman be so kind as to explain, why incidents like this are very rare in countries which do not provide ready access to guns to the general public?
Ah, my good ol' friend correlation does not imply causality. Now, rather than explain anything I'll simply point out that number 4 on the list of gun ownership/capita is Switzerland where incidents like this are rare. So perhaps you would be so kind as to explain why you jump to such glib conclusions as to the cause of this incident.
Re:how 'bout some gun control... (Score:5, Insightful)
Only idiots assume that citizens having guns *prevents* nutjobs from shooting. Most of these guys know it won't end well for them, sooner or later. Very few honestly expect to not get caught and punished (likely why it's so common for them to commit suicide at the end of the spree). What it really does is minimize the damage. The nutjob is going to open fire anyway and will kill people before anyone can react. However, if there's resistance then he may only get a handful of people before being taken down as opposed to mowing down a crowd before the cops show up.
That said, this particular case is one in which firing back would have been a very bad idea. It was a crowded, dark and apparently tear gas filled theater with a whole lot of people dressed up as Batman (similar to the dark clothes the shooter was wearing). Even if you get a clear shot and you're 100% sure you have the right target and are 100% sure you won't hit someone else, another armed citizen might mistake you for the bad guy in the confusion and shoot you by mistake.
Re:Jesus fucking Christ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, because all those entirely reasonable people who make rational decisions about whether they should or should not commit mass murders would suddenly stop shooting tens of people due to fear of reprisal.
Re:Seriously ... it's not the wild-west anymore .. (Score:2, Insightful)
"No terrorism link" (Score:3, Insightful)
The FBI, which is working with the police, says no terrorism link has been established.
This is the most amazing quote, ever.
if this was not 'terrorism', how is some "brown" guy working on his own branded as terrorist even if he hasn't done anything yet?
No worries guys, this was not terrorism, so you can just relax.
It's amazing that we leave in time where "terrorism" seem to be defined by color of the skin or ethnicity or religion, rather than action.
Re:how 'bout some gun control... (Score:1, Insightful)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.
Rarely does one see such a long post being so thoroughly wrong from the very first sentence.
Re:Maybe same old 'leave your guns at entrance' ru (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:how 'bout some gun control... (Score:2, Insightful)
Or 130 dead as multiple armed citizens in a blind panic open fire on other armed citizens, and all hell breaks loose.
To those thinking gun control would help: (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets say for a moment that gun control laws would have kept this individual from acquiring them. Waiting for the movie to let out and then driving a vehicle at high speed into the crowd would likely kill and injure as many or more people. If someone loses their mind and wants to kill people, there is little we can do to stop them. It's tragic, but it's part of the price of a free country.
The price of freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
As much as it would be great to be able to prevent horrible events like this, it is important to remember that at some point we have to accept that a certain amount of evil has to be tolerated if we want to live in a free society. A locked down police state would likely not be a state worth living in.
Regardless, I offer my condoleances to the families affected by this horrible attack.
Re:how 'bout some gun control... (Score:4, Insightful)
So would you accept that, in this situation at least, better gun control would have saved lives?
Doubtful. A human being intent on doing harm to others will invariably find a way to achieve their goals. If you plan on killing 14 people, I doubt you'll be terribly concerned about violating gun control laws.
Banning guns in the US would be less successful than banning alcohol or drugs.
Re:And you wonder why we have hate-based politics (Score:5, Insightful)
. . . the hot political story at the moment is Mitt Romney's old venture capital company which happens to bear the same name as the most frightening and current Batman villain. [crowd laughing] It's the subject of tonight's 2012 Democalypse (thank you Jesus) edition. . . Bain, not since Ayds Diet Candy [shows picture of Ayds while crowd laughs] suffered through their somewhat ill-timed 1980s "Lost Weight with Ayds" sales campaign has a brand faced this kind of challenge.
I say someone is satire/comedy impaired.
Re:how 'bout some gun control... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like and armed churchgoer stopped this attack
It wasn't an "armed churchgoer" as you misleadingly state. It was an off-duty police officer, trained in the use of lethal force.
When you start with untrained use of lethal force you get George Zimmerman shooting at Trayvon Martin.
One of the worst shooting incidents in recent times came on an army base. And I see to recall that a certain politician in Arizona was surrounded by gun-carrying people, for all the good it did her and the other victims around her.
If you want to feel good, get a lollipop. All the weapons in the world aren't going to help if you don't have the wits to use them. Conversely, anything in the world can be a weapon if you do.
Re:Seriously ... it's not the wild-west anymore .. (Score:3, Insightful)
impose strict laws...
Laws only take the guns out of the hands of the wrong people.
Re:And you wonder why we have hate-based politics (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does the shooter have to be right or left wing? Why can't he just be crazy?
Chris Rock: [On the US school shootings] Everybody is wanting to know what music were the kids listening to, or what movies were they watching. Who gives a fuck what they was watching! Whatever happened to crazy? What, you can't be crazy no more? Should we eliminate crazy from the dictionary?
Re:Gun Control (Score:5, Insightful)
In America, we too have VERY few massacres. We just have a media that earns more money by selling advertising and wants as many eyes on them as possible so they are willing to make everything big and controversial.
Re:Maybe same old 'leave your guns at entrance' ru (Score:4, Insightful)
Umm... Would the name calling gentleman be so kind as to explain, why incidents like this are very rare in countries which do not provide ready access to guns to the general public?
Ah, my good ol' friend correlation does not imply causality. Now, rather than explain anything I'll simply point out that number 4 on the list of gun ownership/capita is Switzerland where incidents like this are rare. So perhaps you would be so kind as to explain why you jump to such glib conclusions as to the cause of this incident.
Well, I could be wrong, but I think that gun ownership in Switzerland is practically mandatory due to military service requirements. On the other hand, I hadn't heard that they run around the streets packing heat like in the USA.
Put it better please. (Score:2, Insightful)
Only idiots assume that citizens having guns *prevents* nutjobs from shooting.
Did you really have to put it that way?
We used to have unrestricted gun ownership and carry laws - think "Wild West" - and gradually laws were enacted to restrict those rights.
Why? Because a few people abused it. Folks with anger and impulse control issues were hurting and killing people. And even if one were in the "right", most people in conflict lose a bit of their marksmanship - bullets don't hit their target and hit other things and people. To be precise enough and calm enough to NOT do that takes quite a bit of training and who has the time, money (ammo is expensive!) or desire to spend the time everyday shooting targets? And considering some of the calibers out there, even if you hit your target, they go through it until it hits something or someone else.
In populous areas, guns are a horrible self defense weapon - or offensive weapon for that matter; unless you don't care about who or what you may hit.
These laws evolved over time for a good reason. Granted, because of the hap hazard way they were written and knee-jerk responses to the events of the time these laws were written, we get some really asinine restrictions - at one time one New England state required a carry permit to drive a gun from your house to the range even if it were locked up IIRC.
Pedo (Score:2, Insightful)
So, now that I got your attention. In Holland there was a young girl who wanted to sail around the world. Big fucking deal except the carebears thought she shouldn't. Turns out now she was stalked by several pedo's one of who has now been convicted. So, sailing around the word: to dangerous. Leaving pedo's running free, well, that is the risk you got to take for living in a "free" society.
However, the one convicted turned himself in. What to do? Lock away for life as some pedo's themselves have suggested? NO! Not for human rights. To costly.
Every early release, pre-release, test-release etc etc is not motivated by carrying for human beings but because long term stay either voluntary or mandatory costs a LOT of money. In Holland the right complained the left was to lax in sending people to prison, then there first act in power? To close prisons!
Some people need to be locked up for life. This doesn't need to be terrible, you can make such a stay very humane, just not optional. I talk about pedo's for a reason. Some WANT exactly this, to be taken away from the normal world where they are afraid to give into temptation and be allowed to live in peace? Why not? Arrange an island somewhere and create a gated community that locks from the outside. The not-yet dangerous pedo can live in peace and safety and so can the rest of society.
But you CAN'T! Because the bleeding hearts cannot accept that all people cannot be molded into the same one size fits all shape and the right refuses to pay for it.
Mental care for dangerous people is possible but is a long and costly process with no guarantee the person ever returns to a "normal" safe condition. Putting someone away for life is just not on anymore. A recent high-profile pedo case in holland revealed that the man in question had asked his doctor for chemical castration. The doctor refused. Didn't fit with his world view, so some kids had to be tortured instead because the bleeding heart thought the pedo didn't know himself well enough.
And it is not about money, that is just another sort of insanity.
It is that those in power have dreams and those dreams cannot deal with reality. Reality that some people just don't fit in society and the only answer is to remove them in time and that this is going to cost a fortune! But we find it more humane to send a person with severe mental issues home with an aspirin and an appointment and then send them to a hellish jail when they snap, rather then send them to a nice hospital for long stay.
Re:Seriously ... it's not the wild-west anymore .. (Score:1, Insightful)
http://www.top5ofanything.com/index.php?h=db8a4490 [top5ofanything.com]
If you see no3, this happened in Australia before gun control. After the ban was imposed a buy-back scheme was put in place. Now days the occasional gun caches found and the occasional theif or crim has a conciled gun in the street - most of which are single fire weapons.
Can I say it solved the problem? Yes, single fire weapons means people can disarm the criminal a single fire weapon makes it unfeasible to carry. Australia benefits from the fact it's a bit more isolated aswell. The US, however, would have a hard time keeping such laws into play considering who their neighbors are.
Guns make it easy to terminate another life. Get rid of the implement that allows such efficiency and yes it works. No it won't work in the US, cause blatantly the US is fucked.
In summary, it's not the guns fault, it's not the individuals fault. It's the nation at fault just like everything else to come from the US. GFC, Apple computers, Bush, hot dog encrusted pizza crusts.... The list is really pretty fuckin endless.
Re:Willing to bet.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Still there is a chance that you would be able to do that under lucky circumstances. And that chance justifies permission to carry weapons.
And what is the probability to hit a perfect innocent in these circumstances?
If gunman knew that many people would be carrying concealed weapons, he probably would not even consider such an attack.
You mean like no one is attacking NATO force in Afganisthan because they are openly carrying weapons? If some nuts decide to go mass murderer it is not some concealed weapon that are going to make him change hist mind, he will just use clever tactics.
Re:The true enemy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:how 'bout some gun control... (Score:2, Insightful)
Another incident I tend to bring up when this argument comes into play: During the Gabrielle Giffords shooting, there was a former US Marine who had been in combat in Iraq nearby with a gun in his pocket. He never even drew his weapon - he got behind cover, approached as closely as he could, waited until the shooter stopped to reload, and was part of the group that tackled him.
The idea that a more armed populace will prevent these kinds of massacres is just plain incorrect. It may serve other purposes, but it doesn't prevent a nutjob from attacking a crowd and killing a bunch of people.
Re:how 'bout some gun control... (Score:5, Insightful)
There would be shooting, but the shooter wouldn't have survived.
Right. Because a crowded, dark, smoke-filled movie theater is the perfect place to test your marksmanship.
Re:Willing to bet.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's safe to say that violence has always been with humanity since the origin of our species, and will continue to be with our species for the indefinite future. That said, do you really think he could have killed 12 and injured 50 had he burst into the theatre armed with a flint knife and an atlatl?
Weapons technology doesn't make people kill, but it sure as heck makes them a lot more proficient at it.
Re:how 'bout some gun control... (Score:5, Insightful)
There would be shooting, but the shooter wouldn't have survived.
And how many more would have been killed in the crossfire as panicked people start shooting wildly in a smoke-filled theatre?
Survival and gun control (Score:5, Insightful)
"There would be shooting, but the shooter wouldn't have survived".
Are you 100% sure about the shooter not surviving? I am not. The smoke bomb probably would have prevented that, quite effectively.
An audience firing back into the smoke more likely would have killed even more.
Would the gun control have helped? Even if I'm pro gun control I don't think it would have helped here. It is really hard to tell as this was a seriously premeditated attack. This guy wanted to kill and harm and as judged by the gas mask it was planned well in advance.
Re:That is a very touchy subject (Score:1, Insightful)
In India, there was an attack a few years ago by Muslim terrorists and during that fully trained and higly experienced armed police were slaughtered as they ran into a Muslim. The reason is that normal people have hesitations, compulsions and morals. Muslims do not, so in the split second it would have taken these officers to determine they had run into an animal, they had already died. The evil can always act faster and quicker because they don't have to think.
Please don't say that all Muslims are without hesitations, compulsions and morals. Some terrorists are Muslim, and no doubt use their religion to justify atrocity. Likewise, there are Christian terrorists, and Jewish terrorists, and atheist terrorists, and...
I'm an atheist, but hate-mongering should never be condoned.
Re:how 'bout some gun control... (Score:1, Insightful)
Dude was fighting him.
which still does not make him innocent.
If he first chased someone to the point they have to defend themselves, and then he shoot him after he got his just desserts from chasing him, it is still not justified. George Zimmerman started the confrontation and is thus responsible unless Trayvon used undue force. Since Zimmerman was the one warmed, this is a hard argument to make.
Don't blame movie or guns... PLEASE (Score:5, Insightful)
The shooter was in early 20's, so we can't blame the parents.
The shooter was more than old enough to own weapons.
The shooter appears to have some training in use of such weapons.
While I'm horribly saddened for all those people who went out to enjoy a premier of an action packed movie.
For someone to kick open an exit door, clearly the individual had every motive and intent to just kill. This isn't because he saw the movie and it made him violent. He already had violent tendencies and cares little for human life.
I am not a gun owner, and have only recently looked into receiving proper gun training so I am familiar enough to truly respect the laws in place. We have laws in place, but we have this other thing called a Constitution, which is clearly designed to allow each person to enjoy their rights as a citizen of this country. The gun and canisters used were only tools that this individual used. Would we scream afoul of gun ownership if this guy had swords or throwing knives and killed people that way, and then some citizen who legally carried a concealed weapon stopped this guy with the concealed weapon? No, we'd be praising that person with the gun as a hero. Would we then start adding more law about knife ownership?
The fact is that people are unpredictable. And whenever you have that you will always have unpredictable results.
I do not mean to sound as if I don't care. I Do. But massacres have been happening for as long as humans have walked this planet. Before instant news, it would be something we'd learn later. And while it is still tragic, and I wish it never happened, it did.
Creating restrictive laws has never stopped someone whose intent is mass damage. Blaming a movie is just someone's way of trying to take the blame from the individual.
How many of us grew up to the 3 Stooges or the Little Rascals? Both of those TV shows had tons of violence in them. Kids would put poison in cakes or nails. The Stooges would ride on rockets that were fired. Of the millions who saw that stuff as kids, you don't see us going on rampages.
Lets actually blame the problem of the massacre on the person and not the crap that people will speculate caused the killer to kill.
Re:how 'bout some gun control... (Score:4, Insightful)
Stupid government, always trying to take away my Doomsday devices... Oh yes they'll rue the day...
Re:"No terrorism link" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Maybe same old 'leave your guns at entrance' ru (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep. And the places they come from generally make it legal to own and carry firearms, and have lower murder rates than DC.
Most likely.
Which makes it odd that the usual response to a lunatic killing people is to scream for tighter gun laws...
Modders please read parent more closely and remod (Score:5, Insightful)
A forum for their hateful speech isn't overcome by his reasonable statements on gun control. Stating that ANY sizable group of humans have no "hesitations, compulsions and morals." Is pretty bad in my book.
Re:Maybe same old 'leave your guns at entrance' ru (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope. We can't train ordinary people simple tactics and gun safety.
Not seems you cannot.
His last shots were through an open door into the street when the criminals were running away from him.
Yes, this is tragic, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:how 'bout some gun control... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:how 'bout some gun control... (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you realize how poor the firearms training and proficiency is among actual police officers, much less security guards?
Most average concealed carry permit holders are much better marksmen and practice far more often. With them you have people who have made a conscious choice to carry that gun and most who take the time out to get a permit and carry are fairly dedicated to the idea. Police and security guards on the other hand are carrying as part of their JOB. Many never have fired a gun in a real situation and only do the bare minimum in practice requirements (typically a yearly range qualification of pretty low requirements).
As someone who does pretty heavy competitive shooting (USPSA and IDPA), I see a LOT of law enforcement (and military) competitors, and most of them turn in some pretty poor scores (except those that have a separate interest in firearms and put in the same practice as the other competitors).
People just have to get away from the idea that the badge is magic. Except for highly specialized teams like SWAT, police are generally not all that much more qualified to "handle" defense of people than the actual people being threatened are. Their main rule is the apprehension and detainment of criminals. IE, the aftermath. We ALL should take a role in the protection of ourselves when out and about.
Re:"No terrorism link" (Score:5, Insightful)
Terrorism (except for the sort spouted about by politicians looking for a catch-phrase) comes down to intent. It's not a case of terrorism being a "worse" crime than murder, just different in nature.
A terrorist attacking a cinema full of crowded people is doing so in order to draw attention to a cause, extort some response out of the government, or in some way use force to coerce and intimidate the populace (or their representatives) into doing his will. This terrorist is also a mass murderer. However, if some guy shoots up the cinema because he just lost his job, broke up with his girlfriend, and is pissed at life, it's not terrorism, even if he kills just as many people as the prior nutjob.
Likewise, a campaign of regular bomb threats or hoaxes to get people scared on or on-edge could be considered terrorism, even if nobody died.
The dude saying "no terrorism link has been established" isn't saying that you therefore don't need to be worried, he's saying "and we don't know why he did it yet, but it doesn't look like terrorism."
Re:Willing to bet.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Devil's advocate would say that it also arms and protects any potential victims, regardless of their physical strength. An elderly woman with a gun, trained to use it proficiently, can bring down a muscular adult male attacker just as easily as any other person. Guns are, as they say, the great equalizer.
There's also a simple thought experiment: suppose an armed gunman breaks into your theater. Would you rather A) be unarmed, or B) have a concealed pistol.
The equation for gun violence plotted with gun ownership might not be linear or exponential. Maybe gun violence initially goes up sharply with ownership and then drops off if enough honest, law-abiding, citizens are armed.
Re:how 'bout some gun control... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, actually I do. Most hobbyists I know visit the range at least monthly. Many weekly (as a competitive shooter I tend to shoot around 200 rounds per week in practice and another 450 or so per month in competition). Excepting specialized teams like SWAT and the like, many police officers visit the range yearly for their annual qualification and not much more than that.
The idea that your average street cop is some tactical expert is simply not true.
Re:Willing to bet.. (Score:4, Insightful)
You're clearly not European.
In Europe if it's a left-wing nutjob you get the random extremist right-wingers creating a dozen new fake accounts on every newspaper's website so they can create a right-wing echo chamber denouncing the "reds" and their wicked ways. Obviously there would also be a ton of comments about how this is a pro-islamist action.
You'd also have the majority of the media demanding the entire left immediately distance themselves from the nutjob (since most of the media is right-wing).
Oh, and you'd also have a bunch of crackpots ranting about how the left-wing media was trying to cover the whole thing up (even if every major paper was running it as headline news).
Re:Willing to bet.. (Score:3, Insightful)
He could have killed more people by tossing in a couple gallon jugs of gasoline and lighting it.
Re:Willing to bet.. (Score:3, Insightful)
In short, would I want to spend every waking moment surrounded by people who are armed to the teeth for the highly unlikely offchance that I happen to be in a situation like this one at some point, and then hope that amateurs take him down without hitting even more innocent people in the smoke, darkness, and chaos?
I'll answer that with an unhesitating "no".
I'm not totally anti-self-defense-tools. For example, I think Iceland's anti-pepper-spray law goes too far, in that it's a pretty lousy weapon for committing crime with even compared with commonly available tools like a kitchen knife, and is pretty obviously only for self-defense, with non-lethal, non-permanent results. But do I want to live in a paranoia-society surrounded by heavily armed people at all times? No thank you!
Re:Willing to bet.. (Score:5, Insightful)
If a guy decides he wants to kill a whole lot of people and takes the time and effort to get body armor and tear gas, but finds guns are unavailable do you think he would:
A) Use a knife/baseball bat/bow and arrow/other relatively short range and less lethal weapon
B) Build a bomb or find another way to make an explosion using readily available materials at your local shop that are more accessible than a gun
C) Give up and go home, as guns are the only way to kill a bunch of unsuspecting and distracted people in a crowded, public place
Re:Maybe same old 'leave your guns at entrance' ru (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Get ready (Score:5, Insightful)
If and only if the theatres want to go out of business entirely. Nothing you could put on a screen is worth getting patted down.
Re:If you want attention (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Willing to bet.. (Score:5, Insightful)
This comes up every time there's a mass shooting in the US. The solution to gun violence is not ensuring that everyone is equally armed.
First, if someone opens fire around you or at you, your first reaction is not going to be to reach for your own gun, but to get the fuck out of there. That's instinct. You run.
Second, a gun is most effective with proper training and practice. Not everybody wants to own a gun or accept the responsibility that goes with it.
Third, the last thing we want in a shooting situation is six other people drawing guns and firing. That has a better chance of just adding to the body count rather than stopping the shooting.
Re:how 'bout some gun control... (Score:4, Insightful)
In all honesty, what a load of bullcrap. Whoever is attacking you has the element of surprise and will come at you with guns drawn and safeties off. And if they want to shoot you then with bullets flying. Not to mention every choice of time and place and they only pick fights they're going to win, like when I'm on my way home from the pub after one too many beers. If you claim guns have "removed force from the menu" in the US you must be smoking the really, really good stuff. Nothing puts me on equal footing with the attacker, whether it's a gun pointed at me or a knife on my throat. Even in the wild west the sheriff and bounty hunters was a very important part of society, the less rule of law you got the more guns you need because you're on your own. Maybe he should try civilized society sometime, it's a pretty good alternative to the hand gun.
Re:Willing to bet.. (Score:5, Insightful)
It goes both ways. Do I want to be treated like I can't be trusted just on the off chance that some nutter will commit mass murder. The problem with gun control or any similar "category ban" is that it's fundementally democratic. It demonstrates a contempt for the citizenry. It's a blatant statement by the relevant politicians that they think the commoners can't be trusted.
The idea that the people can't be trusted with types of personal property is fundementally at odds with the idea that they can govern themselves.
Re:Willing to bet.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I assume you live in Iceland since you made that comment about the pepper spray. Try to imagine living in the USA. Most of our states are several times larger than your entire country (and most of Iceland is uninhabited). The largest city in Iceland has a bit over 100,000 people. And the entire country is a remote island! It's almost like it was purposefully created to be easy to control imports and how imported products are used once they get there. The Icelandic police could get rid of all guns in a few weeks by literally going to every house and looking for them.
This is not the same situation we face in the USA. We are a continental country with two massive borders. To our South is a country without a functioning government (with respect to internal security). Smuggling is rampant. Let's say we decided to ban guns and follow Europe in their social policy. What would happen?
-Many gun owning citizens would be angry, hide their guns, and probably become violent if the government tried to take them.
-A black market for guns would be expanded (it already exists)
-Smuggling of guns from Mexico and Canada would increase immensely and we can't realistically stop them all.
-Citizens who give up their guns to follow the law will be unarmed, but their criminal attackers won't be.
In short, we'd be much worse off.
Why would being around a law-abiding citizen who has a gun scare you? Maybe it's because I grew up around guns and people who owned them but seeing a pistol on someone's belt doesn't bother me at all. It's just something you see sometimes. I'm only afraid of criminals with guns, and they tend to hide them until the crime starts so you never knew they had one anyway. I'd much rather bullets being flying both directions during a shootout, than just coming from the criminal who wants to kill as many people as possible. The lawful armed citizens only want to kill one person, the attacker.
Re:Willing to bet.. (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem, as I see it, is how you reliably prevent the fuck-tards like the stupid 20-year-old kid I mentioned above from endangering themselves and others while still preserving the rights of those that have the maturity and gravitas to properly be trusted with a lethal weapon. Just making sure the person in question doesn't have any felonies and isn't certifiably mentally ill doesn't seem like enough. How many kids in this country die every year because their dumbass parents don't properly secure the guns in the home? How many kids have been killed by other kids because their parents didn't properly secure them? We need to have an honest conversation about this on a national level but unfortunately the issue is driven to extremes: Either you're pro-gun and anyone and their sister should be able to buy whatever gun they want, no questions asked, or you're anti-gun and think that they should be completely illegal for everyone but the police and military. There's no grey area anymore.
Hmm, interesting... I wonder if we can substitute 'gun' for something else here...
The problem, as I see it, is how you reliably prevent the fuck-tards like the stupid 16-year-old kid... from endangering themselves and others while still preserving the rights of those that have the maturity and gravitas to properly be trusted with a lethal automobile? Just making sure the person in question doesn't have any felonies and isn't certifiably mentally ill doesn't seem like enough. How many kids in this country die every year because their dumbass parents don't properly secure the car keys in the home? How many kids have been killed by other kids because their parents didn't properly secure them?
Ha! This is fun...
The problem, as I see it, is how you reliably prevent the fuck-tards like the stupid 21-year-old kid... from endangering themselves and others while still preserving the rights of those that have the maturity and gravitas to properly be trusted with a lethal bottle of booze? Just making sure the person in question doesn't have any felonies and isn't certifiably mentally ill doesn't seem like enough. How many kids in this country die every year because their dumbass parents don't properly secure the liquor cabinet in the home? How many kids have been killed by other kids because their parents didn't properly secure them?
K, that's all I've got (right now).
PS the answer to your question, "how you reliably prevent the fuck-tards like the stupid 20-year-old kid I mentioned above from endangering themselves and others while still preserving the rights of those that have the maturity and gravitas to properly be trusted with a lethal weapon" is actually extremely simple: Training, training, training. a near-fanatical devotion to proper firearms safety and training is what's kept my gun-happy family accident free for over 100 years.
Re:how 'bout some gun control... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Willing to bet.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Didn't you know, there is a magic spell that gets rid of all illegal guns in a country 'at the snap of a finger', and the only reason the US government doesn't use it is because the NRA has bought them off, you see.
Just like 'gun-free-zones' around schools create a magical invisible barrier around them that prevents someone from bringing a gun in.
Re:Maybe same old 'leave your guns at entrance' ru (Score:2, Insightful)
Because the progressives believe that they can perfect their fellow man. Which is what makes them so dangerous. See: prohibition.
Re:Maybe same old 'leave your guns at entrance' ru (Score:5, Insightful)
There were probably quite a few guns in the audience, this being Colorado and all.
But consider the tactical situation and that he was reportedly wearing a ballistic vest and riot helmet.
How do we know that nobody tried to shoot him?
Re:Get ready (Score:4, Insightful)
Aren't those doors supposed to be opened from the inside? Besides both articles mention he went in from the front.
Where I live those doors are made of metal, so kicking it in (through the frame nonetheless) is not possible. My guess is something got quoted wrong...
Re:Willing to bet.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, I understand that there are many vectors through which morons can harm others either deliberately or through the fact that they're fucking morons, but I was talking about guns because that's the subject at hand; alcohol abuse and inexperienced drivers is another argument.
The problem is that the second I utter my concerns about how easy it is for people to get guns in this country that really shouldn't have them I get pounced on by a ton of rabid pro-gun people that mistake my misgivings for me advocating that all guns be banned forever from civilian hands. They use the same arguments you do.
For what it's worth, the amount of training required to get a license these days is much, much higher than it was in my day, and my day was only 20 years ago. I waltzed into the DMV in Georgia and got my license on my 16th birthday after passing a written test only a real retard could possibly fail and taking a road test that consisted of 4 right turns around the block, a Y-turn in the parking lot, and then backing into a parking space. Contrast this with the mandatory 6-months of Driver's Ed that kids are required to take here, the many hours of practical driving time with an instructor present, and the fact that kids can only get a probationary license until they're 18, which carries restrictions on how many people can be in the car, what hours they're allowed to operate the car, and that a single fuck-up results in them losing their license for a varying length of time. They are also required to take and pass an alcohol awareness course. Getting busted for underage drinking, even if it has nothing to do with driving at all, results in suspension of their license up here. That's automatic.
What level of training do you feel is appropriate for firearms ownership? Do you believe that the level of training required today for gun ownership is sufficient? Honest question, because many of the people I talk to that are decidedly pro-gun feel that there are already too many restrictions on gun ownership and that it should be easier for people to get guns "for their protection"...a sentiment that, coupled with my first-hand experiences with that friend of mine packing that ridiculous weapon, is frankly terrifying.
Re:Maybe same old 'leave your guns at entrance' ru (Score:5, Insightful)
He probably did so because he is from a country/culture which:
a) Finds the frequent occurrence of these kinds of incidents in the US, and the rates of US gun crime in general, to be both notable and disturbing. And
b) Nevertheless views US society and culture as an aspirational or progressive model for their own.
If you're from another country, particularly an anglophone country, which looks to the US for leadership in many fields, the automatic response to these incidents is to blame a single, easily identifiable flaw---in this case gun ownership. Doing this allows them to be dismissed as a correctable or ignore-able aberration in a system otherwise worth emulating.
However, as you have pointed out, the reality is that gun ownership does not by itself explain why such things happen so frequently in the US. In reality, the reasons are probably much deeper and indeed systemic issues and pathologys within American society and culture which remain unresolved or even unrecognized. All of which would present a problem for anyone who is trying to order their own country in the model of the US.
The basic point is that society and culture is more important than gun ownership. But recognising this forces you to conclude that there is something wrong with US society and culture and this is a difficult thing for both Americans and for people who look to America for leadership. It's easier to blame gun licences than to reassess your own world view.
Re:Willing to bet.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would being around a law-abiding citizen who has a gun scare you? Maybe it's because I grew up around guns and people who owned them but seeing a pistol on someone's belt doesn't bother me at all.
I think you are exactly right that it is the relative cultural norm that would define your reaction. For example, if you saw a landscaping crew in the USA all "armed" with machetes, you might be nervous or uncomfortably surprised. However, in places like Costa Rica, only tourist would be surprised, as it is a normal tool for clearing brush there.
Re:Willing to bet.. (Score:3, Insightful)
If gunman knew that many people would be carrying concealed weapons, he probably would not even consider such an attack.
Yeah, you'd have to be crazy to do that. Oh, wait.
Re:every country has those problems (Score:5, Insightful)
so yeah: EASY ACCESS to the tool is the problem
So if he'd chained one exit shut, kicked in the other, and then tossed three or four molotov cocktails into the crowd, and used a machete to deal with any non-flaming people rushing him in the ten seconds before he could throw a couple more ... you'd blame what, petroleum, glass bottles, matches, and garden implements? Or would you blame the government for not preventing people from having access to automobile fuel? A couple hundred people in a Bali nightclub were killed in similar fashion (look, mom, no guns!) ... did you blame that country's lax regulation of flammable materials?
What is it with the desparate need to never, ever blame wackos like this for their own acts? People are so invested in total moral relativism so that they don't have to fret about being judgemental (or ever being judged) that they have to twist themselves into insane knots like "only the USA" blah blah blah. How about the Japanese guy that walked in and slaughtered a bunch of school kids with a knife? Did you post an "only in Japan" rant about easy access to kitchen tools, so that you could find a way to not come right out and say you think a murderer is a murderer?
On second thought, I won't blame you for such drivel. You obviously have easy access to a keyboard.
Re:how 'bout some gun control... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Concealed carry by citizens" is the free software movement of the security world, if that makes any sense. Rather than rely on "trained professionals" for my security I have the means to protect myself and my family.
Had I been at that theatre it might well have turned out very different. I can't say. I am usually armed in public and I know how to use my guns. That doesn't guarantee success in a case like this but it sure makes the odds better.
One of the PR problems with CCW is that the successful foiling of an attack like this is a local headline, whereas the successful attack is an international headline.
Re:Gun Control (Score:5, Insightful)
I would not take Israel as a good example of good liberal gun control. Yes, you might have nice numbers on gun crime but you also have unified people with "common enemy" - the Palestinians. For a small group getting gun control "right" is easy, and Israel is a prime example of that, but good luck trying the same with larger population with different religions and world views....
Re:every country has those problems (Score:5, Insightful)
i do prefer those. they are a lot less lethal
one maniac with a gun can kill 10x the amount of one maniac with a knife
"Especially because those people have zero chance of defending themselves"
this is a myth. if you have a gun, you can't defend yourself. because you aren't omniscient. giffords was surrounded by responsible people with guns in gun happy tucson. why wasn't she protected? because the idea a gun at your side will protect form a loony toons with a gun is a myth
Re:how 'bout some gun control... (Score:4, Insightful)
Probably none if the armed were all trained. You have to show proficiency to get a CC license. This [cbslocal.com] is what happens when a couple of armed robbers try to rob a casino full of people when there's one seventy one year olf man armed and fighting back (the video is amusing). Bottom line -- several shots are fired, the only people shot are the robbers, who flee and are caught and jailed.
Re:Willing to bet.. (Score:2, Insightful)
First: you may run. I may not. Bravery is sometimes described as not the absence of fear, it is the control of it.
Second: Not everybody is required to own a gun and just a couple of people in the theatre could have stopped this goon. (Also, practice can be fun.)
Third: There is a simple solution to this. If another person with a gun is pointing it at the goon who is shooting unarmed people, then you don't shoot him, you help him.
Re:Willing to bet.. (Score:2, Insightful)
"and then hope that amateurs take him down"
All the regular gun-carriers I know train regularly and frequently.
The fact that they don't get paid for it does not make them less proficient than people who do.
Re:Willing to bet.. (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm willing to bet (just because I don't have any links to proof) that home invasions in the deep south either a) don't happen, or b) result in the invader's death and that the same in 'anti-arms' areas results in the opposite.
There was a mass shooting at a community barbecue in Toronto this passed weekend. 2 people killed, 23+ people shot/injured. If, say, 3 of the 50+ (could have been 100+) people that were present were lawfully armed (it's illegal for non-LEOs to carry in Canada), I believe the death toll and number injured would have been much lower...if the incident would have happened at all.
If the number of armed 'victims' out numbers the attackers, there's little chance of success. No one ever robbed a gun show or a police station.
Re:how 'bout some gun control... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry to burst your bubble, but conceal carry licenses are already reasonably available in all but 4 states (Illinois is the ONLY state that doesn't issue them at all - Hawaii, New Jersey, and Maryland have them but it's virtually impossible to get one). There are MILLIONS of legal concealed carry permit holders out there. Nearly half the population has a firearm in their household. You still don't have to "wear kevlar suits everywhere".
Realistically, incidents such as this are a rarity. Most gun owners are responsible and upstanding citizens. Every time the issue of of conceal carry comes up you always have the naysayers who claim that there will be blood in the streets. Innocent bystanders will be caught in the every present crossfire situation and people will be shooting each other up for parking spots in the grocery store. It never happens.
As a matter of fact as gun carry laws have gotten ever more permissive in the last few decades violent crime rates have continues to drop. Now is that a direct result? I'm not sure. Crime rates might have dropped anyways. Regardless, permissive concealed carry certainly hasn't resulted in any INCREASE.
Re:how 'bout some gun control... (Score:5, Insightful)
Jesus fucking Christ. The guy threw tear gas into the theater and had a gas mask. Anyone wanting to return fire would have been at a huge disadvantage. This isn't an open fucking field where the shooter is wearing a big bullseye on his chest. This is a crowded enclosed dark space with a cloud of tear gas fucking with your senses.
The idea that a bunch of theater patrons packing heat would have made this particular exchange less deadly is beyond moronic. This guy clearly had the equipment and the planning to pull it off, whereas anyone in that theater, even if they were packing serious guns, wouldn't know what was hitting them, and by the time they did, would be in the middle of teargas-filled chaos. Not only that, because it was chaos, it meant anyone with a gun would be a target for anyone else with a gun, making the likelihood that you would be shot by a fellow Rambo thinking he was taking down the bad guy would greatly increase.
There are arguments for allowing the carrying of concealed weapons. This situation isn't one of them.
Re:Willing to bet.. (Score:5, Insightful)
It does. It also makes us more proficient defenders.
But the trick here is for us to stop being like our parents. Something bad happened and now the debate ensues as to which of our fundamental liberties we need to infringe to "make things better." The movie these people were seeing contained no shortage of innocent crowds of people being violently attacked.
One could have the knee-jerk reaction that the 1st Amendment has to go, that people shouldn't be allowed to make movies like this, under the premise that they inspire this behavior.
One could have the knee-jerk reaction that the 2nd Amendment has to go because the tools of self-defense can be abused to hurt people.
One could have the knee-jerk reaction that the 4th Amendment has to go because if the police had searched this guy's car at his last traffic ticket, they might have found incriminating content.
Just stop. These people have suffered a tragic loss, and people with empathy want to "do something" to make it better. But there are no quick fixes. The real fixes can only be tracked by the emotionally unsatisfying math that shows when you:
Fund the existing background check system's connection to the mental health care system (under laws that already exist), you make it harder for crazy people to buy guns.
Fund and fix education, you give young people options and opportunities to find things they are passionate about. It is from a large pool of hopeless, directionless youth that most violent criminals are drawn.
These solutions work, and there are others. But they work slowly over time. The goal of a high-opportunity society is achieved with patience and dedication. They don't "feel" like they are working in any one individual's life, the coefficients of variation are simply too high on any individual person's experience. But they show quite clearly in the math. To advance, we need to be the people who measure, understand and improve. The next Enlightenment will be data driven.
Who would be better suited toward trusting the math and working the solution that computer geeks. This is our problem to solve.
Re:Willing to bet.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Almost by definition, the left wing is more tolerant. Therefore, if you aren't on the brink of civil war, the people who are more likely to be dangerous are the right-wing nutters. They want everyone to think like they do, and are willing to resort to violence to force the issue.
By contrast, the left-wing nutters are the ones who started the uprising against the Syrian regime. When the left wing starts bringing out the guns, it is because the government has become so abusive to the common man that it simply can no longer be tolerated. Once that happens, odds are good that the vast majority of the people are ready to rebel but are not quite crazy enough to be the person who lights the match. Thus, when the liberals get out their guns, it is safe to assume that you have at best a few months before the government falls entirely.
So to recap, right-wing nutters tend to cause terrorist incidents, while left-wing nutters tend to cause successful revolutionary wars. As we are presumably not on the brink of a revolutionary war (yet), odds are in favor of this guy being a right-wing nutter if he is a wingnut at all.
Re:Maybe same old 'leave your guns at entrance' ru (Score:3, Insightful)
What world do you live where someone with a concealed carry license doesn't have any "real" firearms handling experience? Do you not understand how incredibly easy it is to become at least semi-proficient with shooting a modern firearm? The reason so many states have such low requirements for their classes is because it is incredibly easy to pick out a man-sized target from 10 yards and put rounds into center mass of that target.
And while a panicked crowd is going to create sighting problems, for you to sit there and say that someone lining up their shots to try to stop the shooter would somehow make things worse is just laughable on its face.
Just because you're terrified of guns and have no experience with them doesn't mean that those of us who do have that experience should be deprived of our right and ability to defend ourselves (and others).
Re:Willing to bet.. (Score:4, Insightful)
The porosity of your borders is more of an issue for the countries around you, they are being infected by this stupidity. Anything can be achieved, you just lack the strength of will to do anything about it.
This is going to undo some rather necessary modding.. but...
You're dead wrong. How's that War on Drugs working out? How about the one on prostitution?
These are facts:
Passing gun bans does not reduce crime. If crime does go down, you can likely find a far more logical reason why real close by.
Passing bans on anything has never stopped anyone from buying them. It at best raises the bar and prevents the law abiding from acquiring them. Those who are willing to break the law will simply do so anyway. This is true for guns, drugs, prostitutes or anything else you care to name. This has been true since day one.
If none of the other bans on various things have prevented their acquisition, why in the world would it work any better for guns? Guns can be made once and last decades if not centuries. The stock of them increases over time.
Any thoughts on the above?
Re:Maybe same old 'leave your guns at entrance' ru (Score:5, Insightful)
I grew up in a military family. My step-father was career Army, my brother and his wife are both Marines, and not only that, but pretty much my entire extended family comes from rural settings where guns are ubiquitous and I spent many a summer on a farm. I've been around guns almost my entire life. I'm not afraid of guns, I'm afraid of the number of idiots out there that think they're fucking Rambo because they took an 8-hour course and fired at a few paper targets.
My brother carries a piece and I don't feel nervous around him because he not only has been trained how to use the weapon, but he's actually used weapons in combat while in Iraq during the initial invasion back in '03, as has his wife. My step-father did multiple tours, both in Desert Shield/Storm and Iraqi Freedom (not to mention the random ops he was involved in down in Central and South America in the 80's and 90's doing who knows what), and he also has combat experience. My extended family were born and raised with guns and are avid hunters (not to mention a few police officers in the mix as well). They've got the experience.
Contrast that with the idiot friend of mine that found out that they were legalizing concealed carry here in Wisconsin and treated it like a goddamned Xbox 360 achievement to unlock, went out and bought a ridiculous hand-cannon that he can barely handle because he wanted a 'Deagle' just like the ones in the FPSs he likes to play that he's shot a handful of times, and is now looking to pick up an AR-15, because the hand-cannon wasn't enough for the "defense" of his apartment with papier-mâché walls. I would trust my step-father or my brother with that weapon, but him? Absolutely not.
The law doesn't make a distinction for fucking retards getting a gun for all the wrong reasons, and I don't know how it ever would without impinging upon the rights of those mature enough to handle a weapon, but to pretend like it's not a worthy concern and stems only from a fear of guns is ridiculous. I'm betting you yourself know people in your own life that you know should not be carrying a weapon that are legally in their rights to do so because there is nothing to stop them from applying and receiving the permits. Hell, I'll make it even easier: How often do you see people driving that you cannot believe they actually managed to get a fucking license? They fulfilled the training requirements, they took the test and passed, but they still drive like a fucking retard? Surely there are gun owners out there that fit the same criteria, and if you deny that, you're just being deliberately obtuse.
Re:Willing to bet.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you accidentally got it right "it's fundamentally democratic". If the people decide that some weapons are too dangerous and it's best for everyone to not have them around, who are you to disagree?
Most people will agree that some things are too dangerous to have people carrying around on them. The argument is really where you draw the line: ...) ...). ...) ...). ...)
1) Biological weapons (Ebola, anthrax,
1) Nuclear weapons (Suitecase nuke,
2) Explosives (Dynamite, C4, grenades,
3) Chemical weapons (Chlorine gas, sarin,
4) Firearms (50 caliber machine gun, AK-47, M-4, Shotgun, Pistols,
5) Knives
6) Pepper spray
7) Tazers
If you're a reasonable person, no matter where you think it should be drawn some people will think more weapons should allowed and some people will think fewer weapons should be allowed, and some people will just think different weapons should be banned.
The idea that the people can't be trusted with types of personal property is fundementally at odds with the idea that they can govern themselves.
Not really. People can't be trusted to carry around weaponized biological weapons because the chances of accidental or deliberate release are too high and the consequences too dire. Only a total idiot couldn't understand that.
Re:Willing to bet.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Would he have bothered getting off his couch if he knew that many of the people in the theater were likely armed?
Oh, I see. The guy wearing a bullet proof vest and gas mask who tossed a tear gas grenade into the theatre before opening fire would have been stopped if he though, wait a minute, what if some of the people in theatre have guns? I'll bet he would just say "I could get hurt so I'd better not try and kill dozens of people today".
Are you really that naive?
Re:Maybe same old 'leave your guns at entrance' ru (Score:5, Insightful)
"Contrast that with the idiot friend of mine that found out that they were legalizing concealed carry here in Wisconsin and treated it like a goddamned Xbox 360 achievement to unlock..."
Laws are made for reasonable people. There will always be idiots, but you can't mold the laws around them without punishing the reasonable people.
Re:Willing to bet.. (Score:4, Insightful)
...and one day when a handful of armed men from The Government show up to load you on to a cattle car, you'll think "Thank God they don't allow me to have grenades or machine guns"
The scenario of the government showing up to load you onto a vehicle isn't hypothetical. It's actually happened.
So here's a thought experiment for you. Suppose that some of those Japanese-American citizens who were rounded up in the early 1940s had been armed, and defended themselves from precisely this. Can you imagine the NRA of its day defending those peoples' right to defend themselves from the over-reaching, civil-rights-destroying government?
How about those whose fifth amendment rights are routinely trampled upon under the so-called War on Drugs?
How about if the students at Kent State or the Lattimer miners had shot back?
Of course they bloody wouldn't. No government will ever do this to you if you're popular. When The Government shows up to load "you" onto a cattle car, whoever "you" happens to be at the time, the NRA is going to cheer, and some of its members will be doing the herding, and if you attempt to defend yourself, history will remember you the same way that it remembers the Branch Davidians. And you'll be dead.
Ask Manuel Noriega how useful it was to have machine guns, grenades and a whole fracking army at his disposal when faced with the might of 27,000 grunts armed with the complete works of Def Leppard. Or perhaps ask the Ludlow miners how well it worked out for them.
Neither machine guns nor grenades will protect you from a hypothetical tyrannical US government, wrapped in the flag and waving a cross. That's because gun owners don't care about civil rights. They care about, typically at most, one civil right. The only time they would actually use guns against a tyrannical US government is if the government tried to take away their guns, which is completely circular.
Unless you have a job or hobby for which guns are part of the standard toolkit (e.g. you're a farmer or security guard), they are useless. They won't protect your civil rights. Only you and your fellow citizens working together can do that. Your civil rights are entirely contingent on the rest of the public respecting them. No magical talisman will help you with that.