Firearms

[Raven]

One of the scariest things to me, though, was how the guy kept referring to himself as "The Joker" after he got caught. All I can say is that Heath Ledger's character left a horrifying legacy, for someone to take legally acquired firearms and actually use them on innocent civilians. It's all scary.

That bolded bit is what needs to change. Firearms should not be legal to own under any circumstances. That's how shit like this is so common in the USA. Guns and psychotic individuals don't mix, so why make it so easy for such people to get guns in the first place? USA is ass-backwards when it comes to firearm laws.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Raven

[Darros]

They don't want to amend their constitution and remove the right to bear arms. I think it would cause more good than harm but some people would disagree, and shit would go down.

[Esau of Isaac]

That bolded bit is what needs to change. Firearms should not be legal to own under any circumstances. That's how shit like this is so common in the USA. Guns and psychotic individuals don't mix, so why make it so easy for such people to get guns in the first place? USA is ass-backwards when it comes to firearm laws.

How common are firearm-related homicides in Switzerland? And how many firearms per capita do its citizens own?

So this is not about the guns.

[Raven]

How common are firearm-related homicides in Switzerland? And how many firearms per capita do its citizens own?

So this is not about the guns.

But the USA is not Switzerland. I did not say for a second that Switzerland or any other country where guns are commonplace with the public should take action against guns. This incident happened in the USA, so I was referring specifically to it. If the US can't treat such dangerous weapons and each other with respect like the Swiss do, then they shouldn't be allowed to obtain them so freely and easily. Switzerland is overall small and stable, while the USA is huge with much less stability and the bad apples tend to bruise the whole basket.

Again, I state the USA is ass-backwards. If they knew what's good for the law-abiding people, they would take steps towards to protect them from dangerous people with such easily obtained arms.

Edited July 22, 2012 by Raven

[Guy Starwind]

People who want guns are going to get them regardless of the laws. Moreover, while guns can be used for evil, they can be used for good too. I come from a hunting family and we use said guns to help feed us. We also got our guns through all the legal requirements. So, why should my family be punished for being responsible? Like most of the issues in the states everything has two sides.

[Esau of Isaac]

But the USA is not Switzerland. I did not say for a second that Switzerland or any other country where guns are commonplace with the public should take action against guns. This incident happened in the USA, so I was referring specifically to it. If the US can't treat such dangerous weapons and each other with respect like the Swiss do, then they shouldn't be allowed to obtain them so freely and easily. Switzerland is overall small and stable, while the USA is huge with much less stability and the bad apples tend to bruise the whole basket.

Again, I state the USA is ass-backwards. If they knew what's good for the law-abiding people, they would take steps towards to protect them from dangerous people with such easily obtained arms.

You said, and I quote, "Firearms should not be legal to own under any circumstances. That's how shit like this is so common in the USA." I don't care that the USA is not Switzerland. I am pointing out the fallacious notion that a nation with armed citizens is one of notable armed crime.

For the record, I want to hear a set of criteria for owning a firearm you have that this man would not have met. There is no means by which any agency could have ably determined James Holmes was going to murder twelve people with the use of the weapons he purchased. The only argument you can make is that he could have killed less with a weapon that was not automatic, or a bladed weapon of some sort were guns somehow out of his reach. Whatever legislation exists, a gun or lack thereof would not have made this person sane. I believe this needs to be emphasized.

[Original Alear]

But the USA is not Switzerland. I did not say for a second that Switzerland or any other country where guns are commonplace with the public should take action against guns. This incident happened in the USA, so I was referring specifically to it. If the US can't treat such dangerous weapons and each other with respect like the Swiss do, then they shouldn't be allowed to obtain them so freely and easily. Switzerland is overall small and stable, while the USA is huge with much less stability and the bad apples tend to bruise the whole basket.

Again, I state the USA is ass-backwards. If they knew what's good for the law-abiding people, they would take steps towards to protect them from dangerous people with such easily obtained arms.

Considering the number of gun stores in the US, you would pretty much have to shut down the gun industry in order to shut down gun ownership, period. And at that point, it seems like it would be even easier for guns to be smuggled over the borders to people who are interested in obtaining them illegally.

I certainly think that some measure of gun control is a good idea. But when you consider the shooting at Utoya island that happened pretty recently, and, in terms of numbers of people died, was MUCH more devastating (and killed many more children, which is something you seem to consider particularly abhorrent)...the isolation of that area, and the apparent lack of any kind of defense for the people there from an armed killer, suggests that there certainly are incidents that actually occur where it might've been nice if someone in the area had been armed, and had a chance to t ake a shot at Breivik.

Was there a reasons as to why he did all that stuff? And where the hell did he get all those guns and explosive from?

The guns were obtained legally. I don't know about the explosives.

Edited July 22, 2012 by L1049

[PKL]

Illegalizing all gun possesion would be kinda dumb though. Some people actually use them to defend their homes, not to do bad stuff with them. As for those who do bad stuff with legal guns, they could still obtain them illegally...

Edited July 22, 2012 by Ghost Marcia Drafter

[Darros]

That's the same thing as the marijuana legalization argument though. That logic of "people are obtaining it anyway so make it legal" is dumb, just because people can obtain it illegally anyway doesn't mean you make it legal, it should mean, if anything, you need to toughen up on laws. I don't think that that logic falls through on "don't make guns illegal!". Not like the US would ever change that anyway but whatever.

[Raven]

Do you really think this guy wouldn't have just gone and acquired guns illegally if he couldn't get them legally?

This past week has sucked.

He dropped out of college a mere month earlier, meaning he acquired the weapons within the time he dropped out to the time of the incident. That's the opinion I was given through news stories, anyway. There's nothing to suggest he didn't get his weapons earlier.)

No I don't think he wouldn't have done it, but he would have had a hell of a hard time trying to get the weapons he did have, and if you go around looking for weapons illegally, you're going to get picked up by the law somewhere along the line.

People who want guns are going to get them regardless of the laws. Moreover, while guns can be used for evil, they can be used for good too. I come from a hunting family and we use said guns to help feed us. We also got our guns through all the legal requirements. So, why should my family be punished for being responsible? Like most of the issues in the states everything has two sides.

I am aware. You've grown up in a culture where weapons of death are accepted within communities, I have not. I don't expect you to understand my opinion. Kudos if you do.

I don't think you should be punished. Where I live shotguns are still legally acquired, but it must be proven why you want or need one. I am by the opinion that laws to acquire said weapons need to be much tighter in the US, and it needs to be proven why you need such weapons in the first place.

You said, and I quote, "Firearms should not be legal to own under any circumstances. That's how shit like this is so common in the USA." I don't care that the USA is not Switzerland. I am pointing out the fallacious notion that a nation with armed citizens is one of notable armed crime.

I did say that, however you seem to be stuck to the notion that I was talking about every country in the world, not just the USA. I have said that I was specifically talking about the USA there, but believe what you will. I apologise for not being so specific in my statement you quoted.

For the record, I want to hear a set of criteria for owning a firearm you have that this man would not have met. There is no means by which any agency could have ably determined James Holmes was going to murder twelve people with the use of the weapons he purchased.

The inability to acquire such weapons by anyone would be a helluva good start. You could be the type who wouldn't hurt a fly, but still shouldn't be able to legally acquire such weapons legally.

The only argument you can make is that he could have killed less with a weapon that was not automatic, or a bladed weapon of some sort were guns somehow out of his reach. Whatever legislation exists, a gun or lack thereof would not have made this person sane. I believe this needs to be emphasized.

Exactly. There are a bunch of things to think about. He could have been restrained by a bunch of people had he just a blade on him. Same goes for a less powerful weapon. And if he did want to get the weapons he did, he would have taken a lot longer to do so, that theatre and those people wouldn't have been targeted, and he could possibly have been picked up on by the law before he had the chance to act. If I started to go gun hunting tomorrow, I'm sure that I'd get picked up on it before I managed to acquire one.

Considering the number of gun stores in the US, you would pretty much have to shut down the gun industry in order to shut down gun ownership, period. And at that point, it seems like it would be even easier for guns to be smuggled over the borders to people who are interested in obtaining them illegally.

I certainly think that some measure of gun control is a good idea. But when you consider the shooting at Utoya island that happened pretty recently, and, in terms of numbers of people died, was MUCH more devastating (and killed many more children, which is something you seem to consider particularly abhorrent)...the isolation of that area, and the apparent lack of any kind of defense for the people there from an armed killer, suggests that there certainly are incidents that actually occur where it might've been nice if someone in the area had been armed, and had a chance to t ake a shot at Breivik.

The guns were obtained legally. I don't know about the explosives.

The gun industry is a big in the USA, it's a shame that it exists at all. It makes people think "guns can't be that bad", when in truth they were designed to harm other human beings. In a culture where they are almost the norm, it's going to be hell for any government to make such weapons illegal. It's too late for the USA to turn around on them now. I'm not even sure why I'm arguing against it since it's a pretty hopeless subject. Just a matter of opinion I guess. I'm against a nation having guns legal if they house so many unstable communities which will take advantage of them to rain death on to the law-abiding public.

Illegalizing all gun possesion would be kinda dumb though. Some people actually use them to defend their homes, not to do bad stuff with them. As for those who do bad stuff with legal guns, they could still obtain them illegally...

As I said somewhere above, you are (I presume) brought up in a community where guns are generally accepted. If you lived somewhere where the gun industry doesn't even legally exist as I do, then maybe you'd see it more from a different viewpoint.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Raven

[Celice]

Raven, that's an awful lot of generalizing you're wielding :/

[eclipse]

The inability to acquire such weapons by anyone would be a helluva good start. You could be the type who wouldn't hurt a fly, but still shouldn't be able to legally acquire such weapons legally.

If guns were completely illega, and someone who had no intention of following the law wanted a gun, do you think it would be impossible for them to get one?

[Esau of Isaac]

No I don't think he wouldn't have done it, but he would have had a hell of a hard time trying to get the weapons he did have, and if you go around looking for weapons illegally, you're going to get picked up by the law somewhere along the line.

Yeah, if this continues to infinity. But it wouldn't, and it doesn't. People all over the world possess illegally obtained firearms, and have yet to have been "picked up by the law".

I did say that, however you seem to be stuck to the notion that I was talking about every country in the world, not just the USA. I have said that I was specifically talking about the USA there, but believe what you will. I apologise for not being so specific in my statement you quoted.

You provided a generalized statement regarding the USA after you had already made the statement that they should not be able to be obtained at all. And, what, Americans shouldn't be allowed to have guns but others should? What kind of argument is that?

The inability to acquire such weapons by anyone would be a helluva good start. You could be the type who wouldn't hurt a fly, but still shouldn't be able to legally acquire such weapons legally.

And now you again fall back into the generalization that everyone should not be allowed to have guns, after literally just getting done saying that you were only talking about America. Okay, guy.

Bad answer to the question, too, since you were trying to draw a distinction between nations that don't have huge gun homicide rates despite having a large number of firearms per capita. I ask you again, and please give me a straight answer: What kind of criteria would you set up for a law-abiding citizen to ably defend themselves with a firearm which this man wouldn't have passed?

Exactly. There are a bunch of things to think about. He could have been restrained by a bunch of people had he just a blade on him. Same goes for a less powerful weapon. And if he did want to get the weapons he did, he would have taken a lot longer to do so, that theatre and those people wouldn't have been targeted, and he could possibly have been picked up on by the law before he had the chance to act. If I started to go gun hunting tomorrow, I'm sure that I'd get picked up on it before I managed to acquire one.

If he couldn't have obtained a gun he would have made bombs and set the theater on fire from within, or any manner of ridiculous methodologies to kill. The entire point of the response which you failed to grasp is that guns didn't kill these people, a murderous psychopath did. Taking away all guns everywhere isn't going to make murderers disappear, it's just going to make all murderers everywhere on the same ground as law-abiding citizens --unless of course they for whatever reason decide to consider breaking the law and obtain firearms anyways.

Do you think that there are more people in the world who would kill innocents with guns than not? Then firearms should logically be illegal. Do you think that there are more people in the world who would not kill innocents with guns than would? Then firearms should logically be legal. Pretty simple.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Esau of Isaac

[Original Alear]

Maybe I am a jerk for doing this, but, while I'm gonna get back to this later with more detailed responses probably, in the meantime I think people should also look at the "Operation Fast and Furious" thing that went down recently, since the focus seems to be on a relatively current event. Possibly also the Trayvon Martin shooting. While the media and our national government seem to have (at least earlier - I haven't been following how it's been followed in the past week or so) misrepresented what actually happened massively, it still might be a lot more indicative of what law enforcement is able to do - in terms of what the law says they can do, what they want to do, and what they're allowed to do - about any sort of issues with illegally obtained prior to a violent crime being committed.

(BTW, I say it was massively misrepresented in part because it was made to look like the ATF squad was gifting people guns, when later reports seem to have indicated that they were actually monitoring gun sales but not having any direct "walking" operations where they sold guns and then tracked them.)

Edited July 23, 2012 by L1049

[MacLovin]

Geez.

Cars kill more people per year than guns.

So, would banning cars solve this problem?

And if we banned guns, that would mean that the criminals who obtain them illegally anyways-would use them.

It's the people and not the tools.

A gun is a tool, by itself it cannot hurt people, but if wielded with the intent to harm/kill it can do mortal damage.

[Gold Vanguard]

Geez.

Cars kill more people per year than guns.

So, would banning cars solve this problem?

And if we banned guns, that would mean that the criminals who obtain them illegally anyways-would use them.

It's the people and not the tools.

A gun is a tool, by itself it cannot hurt people, but if wielded with the intent to harm/kill it can do mortal damage.

This,all of it.

It a matter of would wields the gun. A gun can be used to kill or not deping on who uses it. People use guns to defend themselves. If your going to ban guns you might as well ban knives becasue you can also kill people with it.

[Esau of Isaac]

Geez.

Cars kill more people per year than guns.

So, would banning cars solve this problem?

And if we banned guns, that would mean that the criminals who obtain them illegally anyways-would use them.

It's the people and not the tools.

A gun is a tool, by itself it cannot hurt people, but if wielded with the intent to harm/kill it can do mortal damage.

All of what I have been trying to say condensed and simple to understand. .__.

[frat_tastic]

I'm personally all for tighter gun control (who the hell would ever need an automatic weapon like this guy had?) but I still don't think they should be banned completely.

[Raven]

Raven, that's an awful lot of generalizing you're wielding :/

Personally I don't think so. Where I come from, there is no gun industry open to the public. Not even our police officers are equipped with firearms, aside from the obvious ones like firearms officers. I don't mean to sound like I'm generalising, but to protect the masses I think you need to try your best to tighten up gun laws by quite a bit. I think the USA's are far too slack, considering a psychotic individual managed to get his hands on them - legally, might I add.

If guns were completely illega, and someone who had no intention of following the law wanted a gun, do you think it would be impossible for them to get one?

I never said that I think it would be impossible. I never even stated that I think guns should be completely illegal, but if that's the impression I was giving, then my apologies. There are circumstances even where I live that people are able to legally obtain firearms, albeit they are only double-barreled shotguns with the barrels longer than 24 inches; even those need special permission from the government to be owned. Everything else is illegal to own on your person or your property except when you're hiring them at a firing range.

Yeah, if this continues to infinity. But it wouldn't, and it doesn't. People all over the world possess illegally obtained firearms, and have yet to have been "picked up by the law".

Indeed, I have no doubt people illegally own such things all around the world. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm saying that if you are continually, actively searching for such powerful high-caliber weapons in a country where they are completely illegal to own, chances are someone who knows what you're up to will shop you in, even if it is just down to suspicious behaviour/actions. Haynes'd have had to be really careful not to get caught in such a situation. But as it turns out, chances are hardly anyone batted an eyelid towards him because he was such a good boy, never did anything wrong and nobody ever thought he'd be capable of doing such naughty things. However one person did question his mentality before the incident, as per the link to the news article close to the bottom of this post. Evidence that he should have been made known to the police or some mental health agency.

You provided a generalized statement regarding the USA after you had already made the statement that they should not be able to be obtained at all. And, what, Americans shouldn't be allowed to have guns but others should? What kind of argument is that?

I believe that it should be taken on an individual basis. More measurements should be put in place to prevent the public from getting their hands on such powerful weapons so easily. As I said to Eclipse above, I'm not saying that a total ban should be made (I know I said something along those lines earlier; "under any circumstances", I retract that statement. Wasn't thinking considering I'd just woken up then.), but a lot more... care, for lack of a better word, needs to be taken, when dealing arms to the public. I think that dealing arms to the public should be abolished unless special circumstances call for it, like the hunting family, or the farmers. If those people misuse their legally acquired weapons for a purpose other than intended and are caught, then let them be punished. Right now I believe it's far too easy for anyone to get their hands on a weapon in the USA. I think it needs to change. Nothing more, nothing less.

And now you again fall back into the generalization that everyone should not be allowed to have guns, after literally just getting done saying that you were only talking about America. Okay, guy.

In case it wasn't obvious, when I said "anyone", I meant "anyone in the USA".

Bad answer to the question, too, since you were trying to draw a distinction between nations that don't have huge gun homicide rates despite having a large number of firearms per capita. I ask you again, and please give me a straight answer: What kind of criteria would you set up for a law-abiding citizen to ably defend themselves with a firearm which this man wouldn't have passed?

The way laws currently are in the USA, everyone and their grandmothers can own a firearm of sorts to defend themselves with, or commit homicide with, whatever floats their boat. Now assuming that things were the way I believe are best, then I'll answer with this: Should a person be legally in possession of a firearm after having gone through all the legal requirements, that is proving why they need to own it (eg. they hunt game to feed themselves, family or to sustain a business, etc.) and thus acquiring a license, if that person felt that they themselves or another person was in danger of losing life or limb, then enough use of force should be applied to prevent that from occurring. If the firearm was not legally owned but was still used in pure defense from immediate harm to themselves or others, then that's for the law to decide the consequences of illegally owning it, if anything will be done about it at all. The article I link to close to the bottom of my post here will also provide further evidence as to why this man shouldn't have been given a weapon.

If he couldn't have obtained a gun he would have made bombs and set the theater on fire from within, or any manner of ridiculous methodologies to kill. The entire point of the response which you failed to grasp is that guns didn't kill these people, a murderous psychopath did. Taking away all guns everywhere isn't going to make murderers disappear, it's just going to make all murderers everywhere on the same ground as law-abiding citizens --unless of course they for whatever reason decide to consider breaking the law and obtain firearms anyways.

I agree with you. However I'm humoured that you think I didn't grasp the fact that this was committed by a murderous psychopath who had this planned months in advance. I'm quite aware of this, and even if he did find an alternative methods to commit such murders, gun crime on the whole would hopefully be a lot lower throughout the USA as a result of having them made illegal under normal circumstances. More people may have died that night using alternative methods, or less may have died, who truly knows. I just know that guns are a danger to anyone and everyone, and if they were shafted, it's one less thing for the public of the USA to worry about, to a certain degree (illegal acquisition would still be a problem however). I never worry about getting shot at whilst I'm out and about or enjoying a movie at a packed cinema since I know that it's illegal for a person to be in possession of one in the first place, and the chances of such a thing happening in my country are on par with the chances of getting struck by lightning (I didn't research this, just trying to make a point that the chances are very, very low).

I suppose it also comes down to where you live. Gun crimes are a lot more common in big cities like London and Manchester, where there are also gangs, drug dealers and all manners of law-breaking scum existing. Just take a look at Jessica Ghawi who narrowly avoided getting involved in an earlier gunfire incident and escaping with her life just a mere month before meeting her end in that cinema. What are the chances of being shot and killed in the USA? A hell of a lot higher than where I'm living, for sure - despite the ability to still illegally acquire weapons here. And I blame the USA's laws on guns partially, however Haynes' mother seemed to know that he was in need of help mentally, since she said "you've got the right one", or something along those lines, upon hearing of his arrest. It's too little too late, sadly. People really do need to be educated to be made more aware of individuals showing unusual behaviour. It's really quite worrying, since this can happen anywhere in the world. This incident has definitely made me more vigilant towards both guns and people who may be in need of help with mental issues.

Do you think that there are more people in the world who would kill innocents with guns than not? Then firearms should logically be illegal. Do you think that there are more people in the world who would not kill innocents with guns than would? Then firearms should logically be legal. Pretty simple.

Guns simply make it easier for people to commit murder. The pull of a trigger is amongst one of the easiest ways to kill another person. But no, if he wanted to kill people and such weapons weren't available using any method, he'd have simply gone for other methods, as we've previously discussed.

Also this following news article is quite relevant:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2177323/Colorado-gun-club-owner-Glenn-Rotkovich-rejected-James-Holmes-just-WEEKS-shooting-spree-freaky-answering-message.html

It's quite worrying when a person is not allowed to join a gun club but is able to buy guns to murder people. That gun club's got better standards than the laws there, it seems. It's a shame the person selling the weapons to Haynes wasn't so diligent as this gun club owner. However it is a little worrying he didn't inform the police about this until it was too late, either.

I do however see the side of the argument where if guns were made illegal, then the only people who would have guns are the criminals and psychopaths in the first place. It is a shame nobody else in that cinema was armed too.

It's a double-edged blade, however the way things are in the US now, I see no point in attempting to change the laws despite how much I disagree with them. Guns are now woven into the fabric of America, and to turn against it would cause a lot more harm than good I think, sadly.

[MacLovin]

How about this.

Take a test for gun ownership.

If you've got a history of mental problems, then you're barrred/banned from owning a gun.

[Esaka]

I agree, we should make obtaining legal firearms a part of the solution, not the guns themselves.

If only people who get guns illegally get them, then robbery (among other things) is unfortunately more likely, at least in theory anyways.

[Gold Vanguard]

1343057219[/url]' post='2071341']

I agree, we should make obtaining legal firearms a part of the solution, not the guns themselves.

If only people who get guns illegally get them, then robbery (among other things) is unfortunately more likely, at least in theory anyways.

But whose to say that people that obtain firearm legal won't rob a bank or commit murder?

[Rehab]

How about this.

Take a test for gun ownership.

If you've got a history of mental problems, then you're barrred/banned from owning a gun.

I believe that was a part of the stink raised over the Virginia Tech shootings back when, where the shooter legally obtained things despite a mental history. To expound on what Raven mentioned, this guy was relatively clean, though (according to a Washington Post article I read) supposedly the store owner who sold the stuff found him odd, and told store employees to get his approval/tell him if the guy ever came back. He found an ad on Adult Friend Finder posted by someone who looked like the perp saying "Would you visit me in prison?" and got a creepy, guttural sound when he called the guy's phone. IIRC the owner did alert the police, but I'm not sure when that was.

I'm of a middling mind of what to actually do about guns in the U.S. There's obviously a hell of a lot of gun crime here, but I don't much know what laws can be correlated to what results. It might be a bit much to call it analogous to a religion, but there are people here who sincerely believe that it's the responsibility of the people to, should their government become unjust, carry the arms necessary to overthrow them. I doubt that legacy will go away easily, whether it's in our best interest or not. I wouldn't mind stricter qualifications across the board, myself, though.

From my personal (if not specifically knowledgeable) perspective, though, I don't think making assault rifles legal/available makes sense. Their purpose is to do a lot of assured damage in close-ish range, I presume to hurt a lot of people quickly/reliably or overkill individuals, and I find its use over anything else for hunting or self-defense questionable. I assume one doesn't really need an assault rifle specifically to defend against one, at least in the average case of self-defense, either.

EDIT: I don't actually hear much about how often guns are used for justifiable self-defense, could stand to look that up maybe.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Rehab

[Gold Vanguard]

Put it this way guns are like drugs , you can ban them, put them,etc but people will still find ways to find it and use it.

[Agile Tit-Tyrant]

Cars kill more people per year than guns.

So, would banning cars solve this problem?

Well cars are pretty much a necessity. And a death from a vehicle would mot likely be a complete accident anyway. Guns = not necessary, not an accident.

Also if guns were completely illegal I know it wouldn't stop people from having them but it would reduce the number of people that carry them. The easier it is to get a gun legally, the easier it is for some psychopath to kill.