Firearms

[Aere]

One problem with making guns 100% illegal is the increase in acquisition of firearms by the people who society deems too dangerous to purchase them in the first place. Prohibition increased alcohol consumption, why would this be any different? If one truly wants to go out and buy a gun, they're going to do it. It's pretty simply.

[Celice]

Prohibition increased alcohol consumption, why would this be any different?

Because guns are not something you can easily ingest to alter your state of being? This is a gross oversimplification of the matter. Alcohol was being relied on; guns, not really. :/

Edited July 23, 2012 by Celice

[Aere]

Because guns are not something you can easily ingest to alter your state of being? This is a gross oversimplification of the matter. Alcohol was being relied on; guns, not really. :/

Explain how that makes any difference.

[Esau of Isaac]

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.

What? The fact that someone somewhere felt he was not quite right should have been made to the police?

Should you be reported to the police because I think you're crazy?

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.

How would making it hard for a law-abiding citizen to obtain a gun have stopped Holmes?

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

It's not obvious, and it's a meaningless distinction. Americans aren't innately somehow more brutal people than anyone else.

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.

So again, what of other countries that have a large number of firearms per capita but a low level of firearm-related homicide? Why is it that number of guns that people can own is relevant to the point you're making?

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.

To be replaced with what? Knife crime?

You're fighting the wrong battle. The weapons aren't harming people, the people using the weapons are.

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).

One less thing out of a nigh infinite number of things that can kill a human being. Oh joy someone isn't going to shoot me with a gun. Now I'm just going to get stabbed, beaten, and blown up with household goods. But at least murderers don't have guns when they're murdering.

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).

There are people that live in countries with that same notion, which also happen to be full of guns.

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.

Holmes showed no history of mental health problems. You can argue that he behaved in an antisocial manner, but that doesn't mean that someone should be disqualified from the use of weapons to defend themselves, or automatically assumed to be a possible mass murderer.

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.

Or stop another person from being killed. Or stop another person from killing you.

Also this following news article is quite relevant:

http://www.dailymail...ng-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.

Yeah, the gun club decided not to initiate him because he had a weird-sounding answering machine. All first world nations should adopt this plainly amazing line of thought!

[Randombobman]

Well I'm sure that plenty of you have already seen this, but I'll throw it out there just to add my two cents/opinion

[Ansem]

We should just ban people, that way they wont abuse guns.

[Raven]

What? The fact that someone somewhere felt he was not quite right should have been made to the police?

Should you be reported to the police because I think you're crazy?

How would making it hard for a law-abiding citizen to obtain a gun have stopped Holmes?

It's not obvious, and it's a meaningless distinction. Americans aren't innately somehow more brutal people than anyone else.

So again, what of other countries that have a large number of firearms per capita but a low level of firearm-related homicide? Why is it that number of guns that people can own is relevant to the point you're making?

To be replaced with what? Knife crime?

You're fighting the wrong battle. The weapons aren't harming people, the people using the weapons are.

One less thing out of a nigh infinite number of things that can kill a human being. Oh joy someone isn't going to shoot me with a gun. Now I'm just going to get stabbed, beaten, and blown up with household goods. But at least murderers don't have guns when they're murdering.

There are people that live in countries with that same notion, which also happen to be full of guns.

Holmes showed no history of mental health problems. You can argue that he behaved in an antisocial manner, but that doesn't mean that someone should be disqualified from the use of weapons to defend themselves, or automatically assumed to be a possible mass murderer.

Or stop another person from being killed. Or stop another person from killing you.

Yeah, the gun club decided not to initiate him because he had a weird-sounding answering machine. All first world nations should adopt this plainly amazing line of thought!

K bro, I can't really be bothered to reply on a quote by quote basis because quite frankly I don't quite give enough fucks about how firearm laws are run in a country I don't live in. I just find it all very sad that this incident had to happen and would like nothing more than to see the root of the problems abolished. I've said what I think on the matter pretty clearly, if you don't like it/disagree then that's not my problem. I'm not going to keep discussing it because you seem pretty set in your ways, and nothing I say will make you change your opinion on the matter.

Peace out.

[Esau of Isaac]

I am saying that guns are not the root of the problem. That is literally the point that I am making.

[Liz]

making guns illegal is stupid

we already have issues with organized crime, making guns illegal would only be giving them another means with which they can collect ill-gotten funds. because yes, in a country where no one is allowed guns, it would be highly beneficial to actually possess one. demand rises, every criminal would want one, so them mafia people would find a way to make the guns available to them. so besides organized crime gaining power through drug trafficking, they would also gain power through the control and sale of weapons.

and for what benefit? just to shift the type of crime from gun to knife or something similar. only the petty criminal would really be affected by the gun ban, and only slightly since they would still find a way to commit the crime.

instead of focusing on the weapon the criminal uses, they should investigate and address the issues that induce an individual to pursue a life of crime. yes, i know that it's easier said than done, but otherwise we won't really ever change anything, we'll just be running around in circles, trying to catch up.

[Raven]

I am saying that guns are not the root of the problem. That is literally the point that I am making.

I agree they are not the 'root' of the problem. However they are certainly part of the problem.

Or to be more specific, I believe the US laws regarding firearms are the root of the problem, or at least very close to the base of it.

[dondon151]

So, would banning cars solve this problem?

Actually, yes, because cars are a hell of a lot harder to hide than guns.

[Esau of Isaac]

I agree they are not the 'root' of the problem. However they are certainly part of the problem.

Or to be more specific, I believe the US laws regarding firearms are the root of the problem, or at least very close to the base of it.

Okay. Explain to me how US laws are the root of the problem, and after they are modified in the way you wish that the problem will go away.

[Phoenix Wright]

I don't claim to know what would work, but I think this might: No weaponry of any kind outside of a handgun, which would be incredibly difficult to get, and only under very special circumstances would one be able to conceal such a weapon.

Rifles, shotguns, and the like should be available at shooting ranges for recreational activity. I think it's OK to like guns. We don't need them everywhere haunting our very existences, though. If I lived in Texas instead of California, it'd be an understatement to say I wouldn't feel as safe.

Criminals will get a hold of automatic weaponry anyway, and for that we have the police. However, barring an everyday guy, what Holmes seemed to be, from getting an automatic death-bringer will at least have prevented a massacre of 12 dead and 59 injured.

[tenkiforecast]

Okay... here's the issue that keeps popping up, and is a direct response to the Gene Wilder picture.

"Criminals will still get assault weapons so why bother banning them?"

There is one major reason why outlawing assault rifles to the general public would be a good idea: Tracking. Should someone prove suspicious when attempting to procure assault rifles illegally, they can be tracked, assuming the people running the tracking programs are not braindead. Furthermore, this would decrease access to assault rifles which have no other purpose than to "Kill things more thoroughly."

Why, aside from a collector, museum owner, or gun enthusiast, would any person need an assault weapon? Not for hunting, the idea is to damage the meat as little as possible. That's the purpose of hunting rifles. Assault weapons, you destroy the meat. So hunting is out. Home protection? Use a shotgun. You are not attacking people at long ranges, and the stopping power of a shotgun is enough to knock someone with kevlar off their feet, or at least stun them. Depending on the quality of the gun and kevlar, it may go through the protective material. So why is an assault weapon even necessary? If someone has an explanation, please let me know, because I do not understand why these things are legal if there is no sort of constructive use.

By making procurement more difficult, and knowing the ability of the CIA, FBI, or any other crime bureau in the United States to track illegal items, this would help make sure things like this do not happen again.

If anything, make waiting periods longer. Make requirements more stringent. If someone is a collector, museum owner, make permits for that. Or hell, do not sell that ammunition. Make it more difficult to acquire. SOMETHING so acquisition is more difficult, tracking is easier, make events like the Aurora shooting much more difficult to occur.

The other argument I hear made by people is "concealed weapons and trained users can stop crazy people from committing crimes."

To that, I refer you to this event: The North Hollywood Shootout.

This shootout occurred as a result of a failed bank heist. Police were called in to deal with the two perpetrators, and discovered that the perps were armed with semi-automatic rifles (assault weapons) and home-made armor. The police were armed with handguns. The police, trained users of handguns and trained to operate as a unit, could do absolutely nothing against these individuals. The SWAT team had to be called in with their own assault weapons to penetrate the armor of the criminals. Through sustained gunfire by the police, they were able to slightly wound the criminals before the SWAT team arrived, who eventually took them down.

Seeing how an entire division of TRAINED POLICE OFFICERS were unable to take down two men wearing protective armor with handguns, how exactly would one or two people with concealed weapons in the movie theater be able to take down someone wearing Kevlar protection? Handguns do not penetrate Kevlar. There is no way they could. Unless some lucky shot hit a weak point, there is absolutely no way a handgun could have taken out the perpetrator in the Aurora shooting. Plus, he threw two gas canisters into the theater and came in during a time of chaos. The time it takes to draw the gun out of its holster and turn of the safety would not be enough to prevent the first shots. This is IF the concealed weapon owner could keep himself controlled in that sort of panic.

People who are committed to terrorizing people in this manner come prepared, they come ready to deal with any threat. They know what they want and have absolutely no remorse for what they are committing. They are prepared to wreak as much havoc as possible while endangering their lives the least. ... Would they still procure assault weapons if they were banned? Yes. But if law enforcement was tracking sales of assault weapons and able to follow up on them, the number of events like this would be minimized.

If anyone wants to counter these points, feel free.

[Life]

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.

Completely disagree. Guns themselves are about as dangerous as little pebbles you find on the street. It's only the people behind them.

The problem is with the regulation laws. Too many firearms find themselves onto the black market. That's where your problems lie.

[Baldrick]

Completely disagree. Guns themselves are about as dangerous as little pebbles you find on the street. It's only the people behind them.

The difference between the two is, not many people could commit multiple murders with little pebbles, but anyone can pick up a gun, aim and fire.

Herein lies the problem. You're probably not going to stop someone determined to kill, but a lot of accidental deaths and such only happen because guns are available. That doesn't mean making them completely illegal is a good idea; but making them more difficult to acquire is.

[Eltoshen]

Think about it this way:

The only purpose guns serve is that to kill.

[Matt Snow]

Well I do agree that the US system of obtaining guns is wrong, for example in most contries , like Chile, you have to go through so much to get 1 gun. My friend is a sharpshooter (sport) and he has to go through 6 mounths of paperwork to get 1 new gun. His dad too.

Also:

Completely disagree. Guns themselves are about as dangerous as little pebbles you find on the street. It's only the people behind them.

This statment is true and false IMO. It is the people behind them that do the crimes, but guns are not as simple as little pebbles. A better comparison would be rocks (People used to be killed by stoning.). Rocks can kill but if I see a rock on the gorund that doesn't make it bad. A person can die from a rock to the head as easily as a bullet (a bullet normally doesn't matter where). Just because something has the potencial to do wrong it doesn't mean that it should be destroyed.

The only purpose guns serve is that to kill.

This is also true. Anyone who says that thiis is a lie is fooling themselves or has discoverd a new use for guns that no one else knows about. This will always be a debateable topic because there will always be arguments that work for both sides. That being said I think that the idea of guns is not wrong the way they are used is wrong.

[Florete]

Think about it this way:

The only purpose guns serve is that to kill.

This is also true. Anyone who says that thiis is a lie is fooling themselves or has discoverd a new use for guns that no one else knows about. This will always be a debateable topic because there will always be arguments that work for both sides. That being said I think that the idea of guns is not wrong the way they are used is wrong.

I sort of disagree. They can be used to threaten or defend. Basically, one can make use of a gun with no intention to kill, although the existence of the ability to kill (or injure) is the reason they still work.

[Phoenix Wright]

Well I do agree that the US system of obtaining guns is wrong, for example in most contries , like Chile, you have to go through so much to get 1 gun. My friend is a sharpshooter (sport) and he has to go through 6 mounths of paperwork to get 1 new gun. His dad too.

Wrong? Like, it is immoral to be able to obtain guns easily?

I'm giving you a hard time to show you that word choice matters. :P

Edited July 26, 2012 by Phoenix Wright

[Fenrir]

I'm sorry I didn't read the entire topic but this is a very interesting topic to somebody from Texas and i wanted to throw in my two pennies.

USA is ass-backwards when it comes to firearm laws.

Again, I state the USA is ass-backwards.

Really hate that I'm agreeing with you to a degree on my own countries laws.

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 don't agree with that. You think they'd hand out guns just as easily? SOME people will get them regardless, but not all people who might use guns maliciously.

I think it's bogus that people can have fully automatics. And something else --Don't know if it's been brought up or not-- is that Mexican and southern american gangs have guns that are largely supplied from the USA. Somebody who is in a bad spot financially(And I mean really bad, people have some decency) and lives in southern Texas could possibly make some money supplying drug cartels. Wouldn't it be at least a little better if all those cartels could get are handguns? That seems like the best compromise. People can still defend themselves, but nobody can go on killing rampages like you can with an AR.

I know plenty of people who carry handguns with them almost 24/7. So I hate to defend the rednecks but I don't run into a theatre or any public place and start shooting around where i live. Some hick would shoot my ass up.

Bottom line for me:

I don't like anybody carrying a gun around but you do have to look at it from a few perspectives. As a start I think fully automatics need to go away to the general public. What's it worth?

[Guy Starwind]

I don't agree with that. You think they'd hand out guns just as easily? SOME people will get them regardless, but not all people who might use guns maliciously.

I think it's bogus that people can have fully automatics. And something else --Don't know if it's been brought up or not-- is that Mexican and southern american gangs have guns that are largely supplied from the USA. Somebody who is in a bad spot financially(And I mean really bad, people have some decency) and lives in southern Texas could possibly make some money supplying drug cartels. Wouldn't it be at least a little better if all those cartels could get are handguns? That seems like the best compromise. People can still defend themselves, but nobody can go on killing rampages like you can with an AR.

I know plenty of people who carry handguns with them almost 24/7. So I hate to defend the rednecks but I don't run into a theatre or any public place and start shooting around where i live. Some hick would shoot my ass up.

Bottom line for me:

I don't like anybody carrying a gun around but you do have to look at it from a few perspectives. As a start I think fully automatics need to go away to the general public. What's it worth?

Wait, I'm sorry what part of my statement do you not agree with?

[Lord Raven]

Not totally interested in getting into this debate until like... later this week. Know that I believe guns should be outlawed, my reasoning is simple but it's not as simple as "guns only exist to kill" or "people kill people not guns", because guns make the entire process easier. At any rate, I will respond to this.

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.

The concept of supply and demand throws a wrench into this theory. Ban guns -> lesser supply -> more demand from criminals -> they will cost a hell of a lot more, to the extent where one would be deterred from buying them. Very, very few people will find their way around it and use them as a result. This, I imagine, is why gun violence is virtually non-existent in the UK. Edited July 30, 2012 by Lord Raven

[Anouleth]

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.

Even under US gun laws, many of the people at the youth camp would be unable to purchase a firearm because they are too young. I don't know if the security officer at the camp had a gun, but since he was one of the first to die, I doubt it would matter much. And Breivik only managed to get his weapons because he smuggled them from a country with more liberal gun control laws (the Czech Republic).

Moreover, Colorado has some of the most liberal gun laws in the US, yet this Joker shooting happened anyway.

[Duff Ostrich]

The rights guaranteed to me in the United States constitution are virtually not up for debate, and as such I will exercise my right to own firearms without fear that the government will attempt to remove that right from me (as a tyranny might do) at he behest of fear mongers and reactionaries.