Dark Knight Rises Shooting Spree

[NightElf125]

If you guys have been awake that long this morning I'm sure you've heard about the crazy, horrible shooting that happened at the midnight premiere of the Dark Knight Rises: http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/us/colorado-theater-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 . 12 killed, 38 others wounded, pretty crazy. My heart goes out to the affected families...

 

[takakenji]

Where Do People even Get alll those Weapons

 

[Fussiler1]

Jesus, guys.

Really a shame. :|

 

[The Dark Wizard]

My heart goes out to the affected families .......

 

[Crayons]

Where Do People even Get alll those Weapons

"Oates said the guns were purchased legally by Holmes at stores in the Denver area in the past two months. More than 6,000 rounds of ammunition were also purchased online, according to Oates."


At the GunShop

 

[NightElf125]

My heart goes out to the affected families .......

That's exactly what I said xD

 

[Colt556]

Can't help but laugh and shake my head in pity when I read the inevitable flood of "guns r evul and must b bant!". Deterrence is always the best way to solve any problem. I'm sure people of this forum are aware of what M.A.D. is. A gunmen would be far less likely to go in and open fire in a theatre if he knew many people there were also packing guns and knew how to use them.

Obviously we shouldn't just pass a gun to everyone and call it a day. But things like the concealed carry law with mandatory tests every few months to make sure you know how to use your weapon. That is the best way to cut down on these sort of events. Most people aren't just gonna go on a shooting spree just because they have a gun. But most gunmen would think twice if they knew everyone else also had a gun.

 

[The Dark Wizard]

Can't help but laugh and shake my head in pity when I read the inevitable flood of "guns r evul and must b bant!". Deterrence is always the best way to solve any problem. I'm sure people of this forum are aware of what M.A.D. is. A gunmen would be far less likely to go in and open fire in a theatre if he knew many people there were also packing guns and knew how to use them.

Obviously we shouldn't just pass a gun to everyone and call it a day. But things like the concealed carry law with mandatory tests every few months to make sure you know how to use your weapon. That is the best way to cut down on these sort of events. Most people aren't just gonna go on a shooting spree just because they have a gun. But most gunmen would think twice if they knew everyone else also had a gun.

I find my self agreeing with you.

 

[Tirlititi]

I don't follow your thoughts. We should teach people how to use guns and that will make people never actually use them? That's a very bizarre reasoning. Or did I misunderstood?

Personnaly, the thing that shocked me here was not how legally the guy owned weapons (and explosives) but why he choosed a Batman premiere for his shootings??? I mean, he ends a dozen human lifes (not to mention its own...) in a movie theater? How absurd can be his motivations? I really don't get it.

 

[The_wand_mirror]

Can't help but laugh and shake my head in pity when I read the inevitable flood of "guns r evul and must b bant!". Deterrence is always the best way to solve any problem. I'm sure people of this forum are aware of what M.A.D. is. A gunmen would be far less likely to go in and open fire in a theatre if he knew many people there were also packing guns and knew how to use them.

Obviously we shouldn't just pass a gun to everyone and call it a day. But things like the concealed carry law with mandatory tests every few months to make sure you know how to use your weapon. That is the best way to cut down on these sort of events. Most people aren't just gonna go on a shooting spree just because they have a gun. But most gunmen would think twice if they knew everyone else also had a gun.

If that guy didn't have a gun he would've had to use a melee weapon or resort to acquiring the weapon illegaly (if it was not allowed).

Seriously if there was somekind of anarchy outbreak in the USA then im fucking glad i dont live there.

 

[Crayons]

meh i'm fine with guns.

what they should ban are the automatics. guns like those, you can kill an entire theater worth of people before anyone can stop you.

besides, if people have a strange fetish for guns that fire multiple bullets per second, they should just go to the nearest paintball park.

 

[~Void~]

Anyone who thinks making guns illegal will stop gun crimes isn't thinking straight. I mean, come on. People who commit murder aren't going to be frightened by gun laws. What kind of logic is that?

Throw it out the window, buddy.

On the other hand, a quote from a tea party member in Arizona that should really get your jimmies good and rustled:

It does make me wonder, you know, with all those people in the theater, was there nobody that was carrying? That could have stopped this guy more quickly? (source: Meet the Press)

Looks like the general consensus over there is that things ran much smoother back in the days of the Wild West.

 

[Crayons]

well ofc they wouldn't be afraid.


but it will reduce the odds of things like these happening.

 

[takakenji]

I'm Not going to Troll or flame u Because i Respect the site

 

[Crayons]

I'm Not going to Troll or flame u Because i Respect the site

 

[Skycraft]

well ofc they wouldn't be afraid.


but it will reduce the odds of things like these happening.

Criminals aren't bothered by any kind of law, so it wouldn't reduce that much. They'll find another way to get guns and continue doing what they like doing.

 

[Crayons]

oh. where are they gonna get the guns? in their criminal networks?


this guy might have had no friends, how the fuck is he gonna get guns from his non-existent criminal networks if he had no friends or associates to tell of.

 

[Skycraft]

they could import them from other countries.
they could stash them somewhere.

there will always be ways to get them even if they get banned.

 

[Crayons]

yes. but not everyone has money to import guns or even have a stash.


there will always be ways, but they are harder.

and thus keep automatic gun massacres to the privileged.

 

[Colt556]

yes. but not everyone has money to import guns or even have a stash.


there will always be ways, but they are harder.

and thus keep automatic gun massacres to the privileged.

This is the problem, and this is what the "anti-gun" side fail to realize (not that you're on that side, or.. if you are not that you're retarded like most of them). Look at drugs, drugs are illegal, have been for a very long time. Yet does anyone need any "criminal network" to go out and buy some meth? Nope, they really don't. Guns are no harder to manufacture nor obtain than any drug. If drugs are so easily accessible, what makes you think guns wouldn't be just as accessible?

Also, for the record, the guy didn't even use any automatic weapons. I believe it was stated he had an AR-15, a shotgun, and two pistols. None of these weapons are automatics, since automatic weapons ARE banned in the US. Also furthermore, an AR-15 is no more lethal than your average hunting rifle. This guy could have achieved the same results using a basic hunting rifle.

Criminals like this are looking for one thing, and one thing only. Fame. They know that if they go to a Batman premier and gun down 70 people, they're gonna become famous and their name will be known for a long time. Now what happens if they realize they can't actually get that fame? If he knew that one or more people in that theatre were packing heat and could end his life before he got his third kill, he very likely wouldn't have bothered.

You don't see mass shootings in police stations or army bases, do you? You see them in areas where people are condensed and unarmed, such as movie theatres, schools, and any other public gathering. Because it's shooting fish in a barrel. They're guaranteed to rack up a high kill count and they're guaranteed to get their name known.

If those fish could shoot back, THEY would be the famous ones, not the would-be shooter. It's just basic common sense. The prospect that the person you will be attacking could be armed and could kill you, that alone will prevent most of these sorts of crimes. This has been proven time and time again when states enact concealed carry laws. The more guns people buy and own, the less crime there is. Because 99% of criminals aren't suicidal.

 

[Karawasa]

Also, for the record, the guy didn't even use any automatic weapons. I believe it was stated he had an AR-15, a shotgun, and two pistols. None of these weapons are automatics, since automatic weapons ARE banned in the US. Also furthermore, an AR-15 is no more lethal than your average hunting rifle. This guy could have achieved the same results using a basic hunting rifle.

The assault weapons ban expired in 2004. Automatic illegal? Yes. Semi-automatic illegal? No.

The guy had a clip capable of holding 100 bullets. He also had armor piercing rounds. Can you explain to me why any hunter needs 100 bullets per clip and armor piercing rounds with a semi-automatic rate of fire?

Them deer too hard to kill?

PS: The "if it was illegal it wouldn't be any harder to get" argument is nonsense. Please think before you talk.

 

[Colt556]

The assault weapons ban expired in 2004. Automatic illegal? Yes. Semi-automatic illegal? No.

The guy had a clip capable of holding 100 bullets. He also had armor piercing rounds. Can you explain to me why any hunter needs 100 bullets per clip and armor piercing rounds with a semi-automatic rate of fire?

Them deer too hard to kill?

PS: The "if it was illegal it wouldn't be any harder to get" argument is nonsense. Please think before you talk.

I wish I could say you were trolling, but I doubt you are.

First of all, there is no mention of the guy using a drum magazine for his AR15, that means, at most, he had around 30 rounds in his mag. Furthermore, he wasn't using armor-piercing rounds. Even if he was (which I'm pretty certain he wasn't), not like it makes much of a difference considering a normal bullet will do the same damage to a person as an armor-piercing one will.

Furthermore, do you even know what semi-automatic means? Almost every single weapon out there is semi-automatic. Your standard handgun? Semi-auto, most hunting rifles? Semi-auto. So I go back to what I said in my last post in that he didn't have anything more lethal than your standard hunting rifle. If we go by the logic you're trying to propose, any and every sort of fire-arm should be banned, universally. Which is nonsense.

Also, if you think going "lol it's illegal" magically makes things vanish and makes them harder to obtain, you clearly never heard about the war on drugs. Yeah, sure, killers like Holmes can't go and import illegal guns. But they don't need to, other people are doing it for them. Potheads don't grow their own pot most of the time, they buy it from the people who do (or sellers who buy it from the people that do). Same would be done with guns just as easily.

It's wishful thinking to assume making something illegal magically fixes the problem. It harkens back to an age-old saying (which is actually used in WC3 funnily enough): Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If some guy wants to go shoot up a movie theater, he'll do it regardless of whether or not the government says it's illegal.

 

[Dr Super Good]

This is why the old Batmans were better. Less violent and more funny. Batman is not meant to be serious, he is meant to be entertaining. Even with the governator as Mr. Freeze it was still an entertaining family watch that I am willing to repeat every few years.

The last Batman film was just far too violent. The Joker gave me the completely wrong reaction compared to previous jokers. Joker is meant to have an amusing but evil style, and not be the incarnation of terrorisim. I shudder to think what this new film is like, although apparently Bane is given more credit this time round.

Take a look at "Lego Batman 2", a video game, to see what the Joker should be like. Evil, destructive but with style and nowhere near as violent as his last film outing.

 

[Tirlititi]

Wow, wait.
Burton's Batmans were as violent as Nolan's ones. The violence may be slightly different (more gas in the old and less martial fights for instance) but it wasn't lighter. The Joker is much more the incarnation of terrorisim in the old one while it is the incarnation of madness in the new one, IMO. Burton's Joker frightens me more than Nolan's.
Unless you're speaking about the old series, but it just doesn't have the same purpose, I guess.

However there is still to prove there is a deep connection with the shootings.

 

[Dr Super Good]

Just look at the new two-face and you will see it is infinitly more violent, violent to the excess.

The old joker had style. His face was symetrical for a start with neat lipstick. He also had much better acting behind him, take the scene where he stood infront of the Bat-plane while Batman missed him.

 

[Skycraft]

The ones with Mr Freeze, Robin etc. were entertaining to watch because they were so bad and were nothing like the characters themselves, it was terrible.

I did prefer Jack Nicholson's Joker but I also prefer the new movies; although I'd like to see at least once they get a few characters actually right for a change. This "set in the real world" theme is really lame.

 

[Crayons]

This is the problem, and this is what the "anti-gun" side fail to realize (not that you're on that side, or.. if you are not that you're retarded like most of them). Look at drugs, drugs are illegal, have been for a very long time. Yet does anyone need any "criminal network" to go out and buy some meth? Nope, they really don't. Guns are no harder to manufacture nor obtain than any drug. If drugs are so easily accessible, what makes you think guns wouldn't be just as accessible?

Also, for the record, the guy didn't even use any automatic weapons. I believe it was stated he had an AR-15, a shotgun, and two pistols. None of these weapons are automatics, since automatic weapons ARE banned in the US. Also furthermore, an AR-15 is no more lethal than your average hunting rifle. This guy could have achieved the same results using a basic hunting rifle.

Criminals like this are looking for one thing, and one thing only. Fame. They know that if they go to a Batman premier and gun down 70 people, they're gonna become famous and their name will be known for a long time. Now what happens if they realize they can't actually get that fame? If he knew that one or more people in that theatre were packing heat and could end his life before he got his third kill, he very likely wouldn't have bothered.

You don't see mass shootings in police stations or army bases, do you? You see them in areas where people are condensed and unarmed, such as movie theatres, schools, and any other public gathering. Because it's shooting fish in a barrel. They're guaranteed to rack up a high kill count and they're guaranteed to get their name known.

If those fish could shoot back, THEY would be the famous ones, not the would-be shooter. It's just basic common sense. The prospect that the person you will be attacking could be armed and could kill you, that alone will prevent most of these sorts of crimes. This has been proven time and time again when states enact concealed carry laws. The more guns people buy and own, the less crime there is. Because 99% of criminals aren't suicidal.

easier to buy one sachet of drugs, than an illegalized auto or a big barrel.

besides, the reason why people are able to sell drugs is because of guns. they're the reason why drug violence is so ruthless, yet so effective.

drug violence, and probably other violence would be easier to handle if people killed each other with sticks and harsh language (another wc3 quote).

I agree that it won't be taken out of existence, but gun violence will be rarer if everyone thought that guns are rare as well, and all them attentionwhoring psychopaths can do now is troll on the internet.

and even illegal businessmen follow a certain principle in order to increase sales. basic principle of marketing - hoard when demand is high, release supply when demand is low, making it really harder to find guns at the corner of the street now and often.

off-topic

This is why the old Batmans were better. Less violent and more funny. Batman is not meant to be serious, he is meant to be entertaining. Even with the governator as Mr. Freeze it was still an entertaining family watch that I am willing to repeat every few years.

 

[Nuclear]

If he didn't have guns, he would have used explosives.

 

[Colt556]

easier to buy one sachet of drugs, than an illegalized auto or a big barrel.

besides, the reason why people are able to sell drugs is because of guns. they're the reason why drug violence is so ruthless, yet so effective.

drug violence, and probably other violence would be easier to handle if people killed each other with sticks and harsh language (another wc3 quote).

I agree that it won't be taken out of existence, but gun violence will be rarer if everyone thought that guns are rare as well, and all them attentionwhoring psychopaths can do now is troll on the internet.

and even illegal businessmen follow a certain principle in order to increase sales. basic principle of marketing - hoard when demand is high, release supply when demand is low, making it really harder to find guns at the corner of the street now and often.

off-topic

That's naivety if I ever saw it. It was funny, I watched a little bit of the news earlier and they had an interview with Mitt Romney, and what he said sums up this entire ordeal. "Our gun laws don't need changing. What that young man did was illegal, but it being illegal didn't stop him from doing it."

If you outlawed guns, nothing would change except the honest, law abiding citizens have no way to defend themselves when the criminals come knocking. You keep trying to paint a picture where guns will be hard to obtain. But this simply is not true. Where there is demand, there will always be a supplier. And you think demand is going to decrease just because it's illegal? Sure worked perfectly for alcohol, or drugs, right? All you'd be doing is creating a society where the criminals run unopposed.

The facts don't lie. States with more guns and better gun laws result in fewer gun related crimes, and fewer crimes in general. States with strict gun control and fewer guns actually have MORE crime and MORE gun related crime. I again states that 99% of criminals aren't suicidal. If confronted with a situation where they very likely can die, they'll back off. When presented with the fact that their potential target may very well be armed and be able to shoot them, they'll be hesitant to go about their criminal conduct. The facts uphold this as well.

In the past fifteen years, there were two major boons in gun sales. One in ... 1998? I think. Related to the columbine shooting. Guess what? That year, when gun sales double, crime rates went down. Same thing happened in around 2008 I believe. Now with the Colorado shooting, gun sales doubled again in that state and I guarantee you crime rates will drop. There simply is no logic in proposing a society where people are helpless and at the mercy of law breakers. No matter how you try to spin it.

P.S. You got your business facts backwards. You sell when demand is high and buy when demand is low. AKA buy low sell high.

 

[Crayons]

1. I wasn't saying we should ban every gun on the planet. I was saying that they should ban any gun that falls under the "kill within seconds" category. or we can even modify our rounds to just maim. everything is easier for cops if everyone was on melee

2. the reason why all the ban laws are failing, is because people still had guns pre-law. the laws weren't being enforced enough. plus, the other bans did not bring along guns in the process. you want drugs, you can't get one, you've got a gun, use it to kill people for drugs.

3. I think I got the business part correct. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoarding and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_demand

 

[Tirlititi]

I again states that 99% of criminals aren't suicidal. If confronted with a situation where they very likely can die, they'll back off. When presented with the fact that their potential target may very well be armed and be able to shoot them, they'll be hesitant to go about their criminal conduct. The facts uphold this as well.

So I guess Aurora's shooter was in the 1%? People in Colorado fall in the case you mention of being "perfectly sane people wearing guns for killing-criminals-only purpose". Of course, they didn't take their guns out ; it would have certainly made accidents...
Besides, I really don't think a system that would rely on people's guts and supermen behaviour for its security is on the good path.

 

[Mechanical Man]

So how many people were able to defend in this shooting thanks to such law? And there isn't much difference beetween automatic and semi automatic, with semi automatic you can make almost the same carnage as with full auto.

Some americans just can't realize that if everyone had a weapon in his pocket, there would be much more killings, in case they don't know, some people are very impulsive, not thinking at the consequences, but only concentrated at the present and if someone pisses them off, they would pull out the gun and shoot without thinking. You may say yes, they could get guns illegaly, but that requires a lot of effort and people in general are lazy and if it's not at hand, they won't bother to get that thing unless they desperately want. As some said, automatic weapons are banned, but it still can be obtained illegally. As you can see, the shooter didn't get any automatic weapons, hence all legal, what are the chances he would buy any weapons at all if they were illegal?

Explosives you say? He may plant explosives in his house as nobody would bother to check. But for planting explosives you need some skills, also at public place, he would become suspected if always around the movie theater. Rushing out with gun is much easier, you don't need more than a day to learn how to operate them.

2nd amandment was actual in the 18th century, when war and local battles were still waging, also note the technology in that age. I doubt Holmes would create such massacre with flintlock pistols. So yes, 2nd am. should be respected also within the age of acceptance, allowing only weapons within that age's technology, that is flintlock rifles and pistols.

 

[Colt556]

1. I wasn't saying we should ban every gun on the planet. I was saying that they should ban any gun that falls under the "kill within seconds" category. or we can even modify our rounds to just maim. everything is easier for cops if everyone was on melee

Except EVERY gun can "kill within seconds" or "maim". A bullet is a bullet, regardless of what is firing it. A 6 shot revolver can kill someone just as quickly as a fully automatic M16.

2. the reason why all the ban laws are failing, is because people still had guns pre-law. the laws weren't being enforced enough. plus, the other bans did not bring along guns in the process. you want drugs, you can't get one, you've got a gun, use it to kill people for drugs.

And so what, you think the government will go door to door, ransacking every house searching for illegal guns if they pass a law banning guns? Yeah, that'll go over REAL well. Also people can get drugs without guns. Most druggies don't own guns. And the drug dealers sure as fuck don't care what gun laws exist, they'll still get guns with the money they earn from selling drugs. You accomplish nothing.

So I guess Aurora's shooter was in the 1%? People in Colorado fall in the case you mention of being "perfectly sane people wearing guns for killing-criminals-only purpose". Of course, they didn't take their guns out ; it would have certainly made accidents...
Besides, I really don't think a system that would rely on people's guts and supermen behaviour for its security is on the good path.

The shooter was hardly suicidal. He took no real risks. He even had body armor for fucks sake. He knew for a fact nobody in that theater would be armed because it's illegal for anyone to be armed in that theater. And most people follow the law. He chose that theater specifically because it was shooting fish in a barrel. They couldn't escape, they couldn't fight back, they were sitting ducks. Notice how all mass shootings take place in crowded areas where concealed carry firearms are banned? Because nobody can fight back and the shooter can rack up high kill counts. Relying on police that aren't there when the shooting happens, instead of relying on yourself is stupid as fuck and inexcusable.

So how many people were able to defend in this shooting thanks to such law? And there isn't much difference beetween automatic and semi automatic, with semi automatic you can make almost the same carnage as with full auto.

Nobody was allowed to defend themselves because the law prohibits firearms inside places like theaters. Even though Colorado has conceal carry, they're not allowed to bring their guns where they need them most, and look at what happened.

Some americans just can't realize that if everyone had a weapon in his pocket, there would be much more killings, in case they don't know, some people are very impulsive, not thinking at the consequences, but only concentrated at the present and if someone pisses them off, they would pull out the gun and shoot without thinking. You may say yes, they could get guns illegaly, but that requires a lot of effort and people in general are lazy and if it's not at hand, they won't bother to get that thing unless they desperately want. As some said, automatic weapons are banned, but it still can be obtained illegally. As you can see, the shooter didn't get any automatic weapons, hence all legal, what are the chances he would buy any weapons at all if they were illegal?

It's this sort of half-baked logic that causes these tragedies to begin with. You're everything that is wrong with this country. "Hurr nobody but me has any sort of self control, give them a gun and they'll immediately turn into a cold-blooded killer". Yeah, no, it doesn't work that way. Most people are honest, law abiding citizens who just want to live their lives. Facts support this. If you actually did research instead of spout random, unfounded fear-mongering you'd know that people with conceal carry licenses commit LESS crimes in general, and never commit gun-related crimes. So yeah, clearly, everyone would just go shooting up everyone if they had a gun. Stop being so ignorant.

Explosives you say? He may plant explosives in his house as nobody would bother to check. But for planting explosives you need some skills, also at public place, he would become suspected if always around the movie theater. Rushing out with gun is much easier, you don't need more than a day to learn how to operate them.

Again, ignorance. You can make simple explosives with basic house-hold chemicals. He could have easily made up a bunch of grenades, put them in a backpack, and start chucking them around the theater. Any grade schooler with a computer can do this. In fact, in some ways it would be easier to do this then get a gun. Yet you don't see people bitch and moan that people are buying fertilizer and making bombs.

2nd amandment was actual in the 18th century, when war and local battles were still waging, also note the technology in that age. I doubt Holmes would create such massacre with flintlock pistols. So yes, 2nd am. should be respected also within the age of acceptance, allowing only weapons within that age's technology, that is flintlock rifles and pistols.

The 2nd amendment exists for two reasons, one of which is showcased by this shooting. To protect ourselves and our property, and to resist the government if it gets out of line. Those two reasons are precisely why they made it. Nowhere in the second amendment does it say "the right to bear arms everywhere except public gatherings". They understood that shit can go down anywhere at any time, and so you had the right to protect yourself.

It's today's warped society that thinks it's ok to take power away from the people. I have a right to defend myself. I have a RIGHT to fight back and kill someone who is attempting to take my life. People like you trample all over that right due to your own ignorance and fear. You don't know anything about guns nor the kinds of people who own and use them. All you know is they're scary and kill people. Your ignorance breeds fear and that fear leads you to make illogical choices and trample on other people's rights. I bet you've never even so much as held a gun, let alone shot one. I bet you don't even know anyone who owns a gun or shoots them. Everything you know about guns you got from the news.

There were four servicemen in that theater. Four people who were trained to use firearms. Four people who, I guarantee you, swore and said "God I wish I had my gun right now" right before the killer ended their lives. You deprived these people the ability to fight back. By doing so, YOU, and everyone like you, contributed to their deaths. You'll deny it, but you are responsible for every death in that theater. I hope that makes you happy.

Edit: An example of what SHOULD have happened, had the anti-gun fear mongers not had their way. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epZod2qyyN4

 

[Kingz]

Is it only me or has the thread suddenly changed the topic into gun talk?

 

[Colt556]

Is it only me or has the thread suddenly changed the topic into gun talk?

Every mass-media shooting turns into gun talk. You'll always have the ignorant fear-mongers shouting "ban guns", and you'll always have the sane, logical people acknowledging that this only happened because law-abiding citizens couldn't defend themselves. The two sides will never agree and so it comes down to the smart side trying to bash the skulls of the dumb side, so that the dumb side doesn't influence laws and ruin the country. Happens every single shooting.

 

[Mechanical Man]

Except EVERY gun can "kill within seconds" or "maim". A bullet is a bullet, regardless of what is firing it. A 6 shot revolver can kill someone just as quickly as a fully automatic M16.

Wrong. With bigger magazine and faster rate of fire you have more chance to kill someone and you can kill more people. You can't really assume that every bullet will hit.

The shooter was hardly suicidal. He took no real risks. He even had body armor for fucks sake. He knew for a fact nobody in that theater would be armed because it's illegal for anyone to be armed in that theater. And most people follow the law. He chose that theater specifically because it was shooting fish in a barrel. They couldn't escape, they couldn't fight back, they were sitting ducks. Notice how all mass shootings take place in crowded areas where concealed carry firearms are banned? Because nobody can fight back and the shooter can rack up high kill counts. Relying on police that aren't there when the shooting happens, instead of relying on yourself is stupid as fuck and inexcusable.

If the place it's at risk, there should be specialized guards there who have right to bear arms as part of their job. Or now everybody should carry a gun when he or she exits their home? Oh and body armor too.

It's this sort of half-baked logic that causes these tragedies to begin with. You're everything that is wrong with this country. "Hurr nobody but me has any sort of self control, give them a gun and they'll immediately turn into a cold-blooded killer". Yeah, no, it doesn't work that way. Most people are honest, law abiding citizens who just want to live their lives. Facts support this. If you actually did research instead of spout random, unfounded fear-mongering you'd know that people with conceal carry licenses commit LESS crimes in general, and never commit gun-related crimes. So yeah, clearly, everyone would just go shooting up everyone if they had a gun. Stop being so ignorant.

Emphasising on "most". These non honest people are the problem and just a fraction of them is enough to cause a lot of trouble. Look, just one among millions and already so much talk about it.

Again, ignorance. You can make simple explosives with basic house-hold chemicals. He could have easily made up a bunch of grenades, put them in a backpack, and start chucking them around the theater. Any grade schooler with a computer can do this. In fact, in some ways it would be easier to do this then get a gun. Yet you don't see people bitch and moan that people are buying fertilizer and making bombs.

Still, you need much more effort to do it. First to create it then plant it without beeing seen. And people could bitch and moan if you are buying too much fertilizer, for example Breivik created some faux companies to buy fertilizers to not become suspected.

It's today's warped society that thinks it's ok to take power away from the people. I have a right to defend myself. I have a RIGHT to fight back and kill someone who is attempting to take my life. People like you trample all over that right due to your own ignorance and fear. You don't know anything about guns nor the kinds of people who own and use them. All you know is they're scary and kill people. Your ignorance breeds fear and that fear leads you to make illogical choices and trample on other people's rights. I bet you've never even so much as held a gun, let alone shot one. I bet you don't even know anyone who owns a gun or shoots them. Everything you know about guns you got from the news.

Defend? This is no brawling or fencing. Who first pulls the trigger, wins. And who is not first, loses horribly. The attacker has the advantage being prepared and have the courtesy of the first (few) shot(s). Before you even pull out the gun you are already lying on the floor. If using a silencer, the matter is even worse.

And it's you americans, who are afraid, not us. Why can I freely roam without fear in my country without need of weapons, while you can't? Sure, here there are areas that are more dangerous than others, but if you are fast enough or even strong enough you don't have fear somebody will shoot you at your back. And risky areas are obvious known ghettos and not public places. Your country may be seriously fucked up if criminals are lurking in every corner.

This american arms-histeria is caused by arms industry, lobbying through media and commercials to brainwash people how cool and indispensable weapons are, for their own profit.

 

[GhostThruster]

I tl;dr'd everything. The dark knight rises was good. Killing is bad. The costs of legalising guns outweighs the benefits. Also colt is a biased kid.

 

[Colt556]

Wrong. With bigger magazine and faster rate of fire you have more chance to kill someone and you can kill more people. You can't really assume that every bullet will hit.

That's capacity though, and pretty much any gun can be outfitted to carry that. An AR15 comes standard with a 15-30 round mag. Yet it can use a 100 magazine as well. The same can be said for pretty much every single firearm. Even revolvers have methods to increase it's capacity. So how do you determine what should be banned? If we go by that, ALL guns should be banned, and that's just stupid.

If the place it's at risk, there should be specialized guards there who have right to bear arms as part of their job. Or now everybody should carry a gun when he or she exits their home? Oh and body armor too.

Everywhere is at risk. You can't put armed guards at every building in the nation. Allowing citizens to protect themselves renders that obsolete anyways.

Emphasising on "most". These non honest people are the problem and just a fraction of them is enough to cause a lot of trouble. Look, just one among millions and already so much talk about it.

The reason these outliers cause so much harm is because the GOOD people can't defend themselves, because of people like you. That guy wouldn't have shot 70 people if some of the audience had been carrying weapons and killed him before he got a chance.

Still, you need much more effort to do it. First to create it then plant it without beeing seen. And people could bitch and moan if you are buying too much fertilizer, for example Breivik created some faux companies to buy fertilizers to not become suspected.

You don't even need that much to make a bunch of bombs. Humans are fragile and it doesn't take a giant nuke to kill them. You can make well over a hundred grenade-sized explosives from a single large bag of fertilizer.

Defend? This is no brawling or fencing. Who first pulls the trigger, wins. And who is not first, loses horribly. The attacker has the advantage being prepared and have the courtesy of the first (few) shot(s). Before you even pull out the gun you are already lying on the floor. If using a silencer, the matter is even worse.

The attacker doesn't know who's armed and who isn't. He's not magical. He starts gunning into the audience and as long as you're not unlucky enough to get hit from that, you can easily pull out your gun and return fire. It is luck based, whether he'll shoot you before you can act. But if he doesn't, then you CAN act and save a lot of lives. Should we deprive people the chance to fight for their survival just because they might not make it?

And it's you americans, who are afraid, not us. Why can I freely roam without fear in my country without need of weapons, while you can't? Sure, here there are areas that are more dangerous than others, but if you are fast enough or even strong enough you don't have fear somebody will shoot you at your back. And risky areas are obvious known ghettos and not public places. Your country may be seriously fucked up if criminals are lurking in every corner.

What country are you from? Because there are VERY few countries in this world where you can roam without fear. Even countries that ban firearms outright have a lot of gun related crimes. So please, inform me as to what utopia you hail from.

This american arms-histeria is caused by arms industry, lobbying through media and commercials to brainwash people how cool and indispensable weapons are, for their own profit.

It's the opposite, actually. The media hates guns and loves demonizing them. They thrive off fear mongering, which is why they label incidents like this as "gun massacres". They get their rocks off making people afraid of guns. But, as usual, you're too ignorant to know that. Do some research.

Also you ignored some points I brought up. Like that video where a guy with a gun PREVENTED crime and SAVED people. Or the fact that statistics show that people who have conceal carry permits don't break the law, don't really commit ANY crimes, even shit like drunk driving or speeding. It's fact that those who are allowed to carry weapons do less harm than those who aren't allowed. It's also fact that when gun sales rise, crime rates fall. It's also fact that states with conceal carry laws and a high abundance of firearms have less crime than states without.

How about you stop with your ignorance, your naivety, your fear-mongering, and look at the facts.

 

[Kingz]

This thread is just too much to even read anymore.
Leaving the discussion, try not to get at each other throats.

 

[Direfury]

Go for the jugular!

But seriously, this is just devolving into a pointless debate. You people need to realize, any solution, no guns or guns for all, will have problems. There's no point in arguing unless you want to come up with an actual solution.

 

[ndh]

Whatever happened to the "eye for an eye" thing?

 

[Direfury]

People got all cowardly.

 

[Colt556]

Go for the jugular!

But seriously, this is just devolving into a pointless debate. You people need to realize, any solution, no guns or guns for all, will have problems. There's no point in arguing unless you want to come up with an actual solution.

There is no perfect solution, the best possible solution is to simply revamp conceal carry laws and allow people to take their guns anywhere. Obviously we shouldn't just pass them out like candy going "have fun". Stricter conceal carry would be required, such as mandatory tests every six months to insure you remain proficient with your firearm. If you did that, and allowed people to take their gun anywhere they want, I guarantee you crime rates would lower. The evidence is already there with the fact that people with CCP commit less crimes due to fear of losing said permit. It's the only solution that is not only doable, but actually viable.

 

[Crayons]

@ Colt
I don't get why people keep making high-powered guns and sell them to people under the excuse of "to protect them from others".

you could get a luger and get the same results.


Again i'm staying with banning of unnecessarily powerful guns
I'm certain that the death toll would be significantly lower if the guy didn't have an ar-15

 

[-Derp-]

I don't get why people keep making high-powered guns and sell them to people under the excuse of "to protect them from others".

You get high-powered guns and go hunting with them; you get a handgun for self-defense.


Ban a gun used in say, bear hunting, you can devastate towns that are dedicated to that recreational use.
Not to mention bullets are a fortune, you have to do maintenance on the guns regularly, gun insurance...


In the end it's whether you value economy or safety. U.S. favors the economical value of having guns. Most of Europe favors the safety of not having them.

 

[Crayons]

You get high-powered guns and go hunting with them; you get a handgun for self-defense.


Ban a gun used in say, bear hunting, you can devastate towns that are dedicated to that recreational use.
Not to mention bullets are a fortune, you have to do maintenance on the guns regularly, gun insurance...


In the end it's whether you value economy or safety. U.S. favors the economical value of having guns. Most of Europe favors the safety of not having them.

then why not keep one hunting rifle model, instead of daily creating many others? because people kill enough bears as it is.

 

[-Derp-]

http://www.chuckhawks.com/bear_rifles.htm

There's quite a few reasons for different rifle models; it comes down to the owner's preference with things like weight, cartridge size, and recoil. Not to mention Americans would go berserk if laws said you had to hunt with X rifle model.

because people kill enough bears as it is.

The bear hunting was an example, I could've said a variety of hunted animals and the general idea would have still applied.

 

[Nuclear]

You got to hunt dem mooses or they'll go run all around the roads and cause accidents and deaths.

 

[Crayons]

http://www.chuckhawks.com/bear_rifles.htm

There's quite a few reasons for different rifle models; it comes down to the owner's preference with things like weight, cartridge size, and recoil. Not to mention Americans would go berserk if laws said you had to hunt with X rifle model.



The bear hunting was an example, I could've said a variety of hunted animals and the general idea would have still applied.

sheesh we could kill bears with crossbows.

and with even more sport!