So, because of James Holmes, they're going to try to make stricter gun laws to prevent shooting sprees. Because criminals totally follow laws, amirite?
If he couldn't get that AR-15, he would have used something else, like a home made bomb. Are we going to ban every single substance that can be used for bombs now? It's a slippery slope that has no end.
I like how nobody ever gives knives and blunt weapons any grief. They're used quite extensively in the UK by criminals, and in the US where criminals want to be quiet, which is pretty often.
The American mentality of "this dangerous item can be used for a crime even though millions of people use them legally; therefore, it needs to be banned" is pretty illogical, since other items that are used for crime much more often than firearms (bats, knives, cars, homemade bomb ingredients, etc) are hardly if ever regulated. Blunt trauma from a baseball bat is much worse than penetrating trauma from any firearm that isn't a bigass rifle round or something.
How about we as a society learn to accept that everyone must be held accountable for their own actions, instead of placing the blame on objects or other people.
This is just one incident. How often do people with mental disorders get their hands on legally bought guns and cause a massacre? Not very often, hence the reason it was in the headlines. Hell, I've never heard of mentally ill people getting guns legally before this. Is it really worth getting rid of the 2nd Amendment for isolated incidents like this, despite all of the criminals with guns floating around in the black market? There are several million gun owners in the US with legally bought guns. A fraction of them may have one but shouldn't. Is it still worth disarming the innocent for this? He was definitely smart enough to make a bomb, and the ingredients aren't that expensive. And there's something called remote detonation.
Just because you're anti-gun doesn't mean you're right.
I see the logic in doing it, but I don't think it's the "initial reaction of Americans is to go out and buy more guns" like everyone does it. And even if everyone did it, it would be because everyone was scared and wanted to protect themselves not fuck shit up.
Actually, giving guns to a minor without adult supervision is illegal, which made the guy who gave it to the Columbine shooters arrested. Even if they were of legal age, they would have needed an FFL for the transfer. People can't just give their guns to others, there's a complicated set of laws for that.
Huh. Those didn't come to mind; my apologies. But even then, these are isolated incidents. Note how most take place with several years in between. Like I said, this doesn't happen very often. And, like I said before, is it really worth disarming the innocent majority so that a few mentally ill (minority) won't use guns to commit crimes (and use something else)?
We all know that one kid in class who says something to piss the teacher off, which makes the entire class get in trouble. Gun ownership is the same way. Are we really going to punish the entire class for something one kid did?
How about we improve mental health care in the US instead of going after the actual items used for crime. Or make mental health screenings common place.
Being a victim of home invasion, yup, it's worth it. How else are we supposed to defend ourselves? The police? They're not personal body guards. They take at least 5 minutes to arrive. There were police about 300 yards away at the Colorado shooting too, yet they didn't stop him. The main issue is that even if we did disarm the innocent and the guilty minority in a carpet ban, the criminals will still have their black market weapons and will sell them to the guilty minority. And nobody has the means to defend themselves. What now?
This isn't like the UK or other countries, where gun production was low to begin with, which means that both civilians and criminals don't have guns. The problem with the US is that there are too many guns itself, both legal and illegal, and procuring the latter is impossible.
And a carpet ban on guns would mean losing the ability for civilians to deter or fight a totalitarian government, hunting, sporting...the list goes on.
If he was an idiot (which he wasn't) and didn't hide it yeah it'd be found but unless there is a bomb threat warning they are rarely found no one just searches the air vents in the bathroom on a regular basis. You can use poison gas, fire, a high speed vehicle, grenade (if you can even get those, idk) etc.
I totally see the logic of buying a gun after something like this happened. If you have a gun, you can actually defend yourself instead of standing there doing nothing while everyone around you gets shot.
I'm not sure too many Americans have decided to buy a gun after that happened. Even if they made less guns, the old guns are still going to be there with the same people and the risk is still the same because the same amount of people have guns.
"...go out and buy more guns... how is that a solution to a problem?" How is not letting people buy guns solve the problem? Criminals are still going to get guns, because no matter what is made illegal there is a way to find it. Then only criminals are going to have guns, because a law abiding citizen wouldn't go through the trouble of the black market to get one so if they are even in a threatening situation they don't have it to protect them self.
It's not like crazy people are gonna stop doing crazy shit because they don't have a gun, there are other ways.
Guns shouldn't be given out willy nilly but the answer isn't to try to get rid of them. People should be given some kind of mental health test, more than just a 3 day waiting period a carrying permit and registration. They should definitely keep the waiting period, someone sane who passed the mental health test might still commit a crime of passion.
Don't say his name! That gives him credit. I refuse to even remember his name. This should be about the victims, not the coward. That is how I refer to him and how everybody should.
if a law abiding citizen was carrying a firearm in the theater then the death toll probably would not have been so high. this is why we need more CCWs issued to citizens.
How so? You can make as many claims as you wish but if you don't have any evidence to support your claims when they have been called into question then you aren't helping your point. I can actually show you evidence of legally concealed firearms being used in self defense. Do you have any evidence of the situation you have described?
I didn't describe a situation. I told you that just because someone might be a loyal citizen doesn't mean we should dish them out CCWs. I'm sure there are many situations but I'm too lazy to use one to back myself up :/ Also, you really flared up right there.
you don't just give a CCW to everybody, you give one to everybody who applies for one and fulfills the requirements and pasts the test. instead of denying them that right for ridiculous reasons. using California as an example, here CCW licenses are given but very sparingly. a regular person cannot get one because they are issued directly by your county sheriff. the sheriff is allowed to deny you a CCW for any reason whatsoever be it your political affiliation, where you live, something you said on facebook, or even just because he doesn't like the jacket your wearing. generally in California a CCW is only issued to celebrities, politicians, CEOs, rich people, and private security for rich people. the common man is almost never rightfully issued a CCW in California. laws like these prevent people from being able to defend themselves in life or death situations.
Criminals break laws? Whaaaaaaaa?
If he couldn't get that AR-15, he would have used something else, like a home made bomb. Are we going to ban every single substance that can be used for bombs now? It's a slippery slope that has no end.
then ran into a movie theatre and shot like 80 people, so they also break them
What if he never did get the guns anyway? Would there still be a massacre?
I like how nobody ever gives knives and blunt weapons any grief. They're used quite extensively in the UK by criminals, and in the US where criminals want to be quiet, which is pretty often.
The American mentality of "this dangerous item can be used for a crime even though millions of people use them legally; therefore, it needs to be banned" is pretty illogical, since other items that are used for crime much more often than firearms (bats, knives, cars, homemade bomb ingredients, etc) are hardly if ever regulated. Blunt trauma from a baseball bat is much worse than penetrating trauma from any firearm that isn't a bigass rifle round or something.
How about we as a society learn to accept that everyone must be held accountable for their own actions, instead of placing the blame on objects or other people.
This is just one incident. How often do people with mental disorders get their hands on legally bought guns and cause a massacre? Not very often, hence the reason it was in the headlines. Hell, I've never heard of mentally ill people getting guns legally before this. Is it really worth getting rid of the 2nd Amendment for isolated incidents like this, despite all of the criminals with guns floating around in the black market? There are several million gun owners in the US with legally bought guns. A fraction of them may have one but shouldn't. Is it still worth disarming the innocent for this? He was definitely smart enough to make a bomb, and the ingredients aren't that expensive. And there's something called remote detonation.
Just because you're anti-gun doesn't mean you're right.
I see the logic in doing it, but I don't think it's the "initial reaction of Americans is to go out and buy more guns" like everyone does it. And even if everyone did it, it would be because everyone was scared and wanted to protect themselves not fuck shit up.
Actually, giving guns to a minor without adult supervision is illegal, which made the guy who gave it to the Columbine shooters arrested. Even if they were of legal age, they would have needed an FFL for the transfer. People can't just give their guns to others, there's a complicated set of laws for that.
Huh. Those didn't come to mind; my apologies. But even then, these are isolated incidents. Note how most take place with several years in between. Like I said, this doesn't happen very often. And, like I said before, is it really worth disarming the innocent majority so that a few mentally ill (minority) won't use guns to commit crimes (and use something else)?
We all know that one kid in class who says something to piss the teacher off, which makes the entire class get in trouble. Gun ownership is the same way. Are we really going to punish the entire class for something one kid did?
How about we improve mental health care in the US instead of going after the actual items used for crime. Or make mental health screenings common place.
Being a victim of home invasion, yup, it's worth it. How else are we supposed to defend ourselves? The police? They're not personal body guards. They take at least 5 minutes to arrive. There were police about 300 yards away at the Colorado shooting too, yet they didn't stop him. The main issue is that even if we did disarm the innocent and the guilty minority in a carpet ban, the criminals will still have their black market weapons and will sell them to the guilty minority. And nobody has the means to defend themselves. What now?
This isn't like the UK or other countries, where gun production was low to begin with, which means that both civilians and criminals don't have guns. The problem with the US is that there are too many guns itself, both legal and illegal, and procuring the latter is impossible.
And a carpet ban on guns would mean losing the ability for civilians to deter or fight a totalitarian government, hunting, sporting...the list goes on.
they just won't be able to do crazy shit with a gun. It's not like they need a gun to kill people.
If he was an idiot (which he wasn't) and didn't hide it yeah it'd be found but unless there is a bomb threat warning they are rarely found no one just searches the air vents in the bathroom on a regular basis. You can use poison gas, fire, a high speed vehicle, grenade (if you can even get those, idk) etc.
I totally see the logic of buying a gun after something like this happened. If you have a gun, you can actually defend yourself instead of standing there doing nothing while everyone around you gets shot.
Considering the fact that he also had explosives, hell yes there still would have been a massacre.
I'm not sure too many Americans have decided to buy a gun after that happened. Even if they made less guns, the old guns are still going to be there with the same people and the risk is still the same because the same amount of people have guns.
"...go out and buy more guns... how is that a solution to a problem?" How is not letting people buy guns solve the problem? Criminals are still going to get guns, because no matter what is made illegal there is a way to find it. Then only criminals are going to have guns, because a law abiding citizen wouldn't go through the trouble of the black market to get one so if they are even in a threatening situation they don't have it to protect them self.
It's not like crazy people are gonna stop doing crazy shit because they don't have a gun, there are other ways.
Guns shouldn't be given out willy nilly but the answer isn't to try to get rid of them. People should be given some kind of mental health test, more than just a 3 day waiting period a carrying permit and registration. They should definitely keep the waiting period, someone sane who passed the mental health test might still commit a crime of passion.
Better safe than sorry...
Yeah, so we should just do nothing at all and say fuck it.
I am pro-gun. I am also, pro-gun regulation. It shouldn't be so damn easy to get a weapon.
it was sarcasm
Don't say his name! That gives him credit. I refuse to even remember his name. This should be about the victims, not the coward. That is how I refer to him and how everybody should.
Did you know that even Hitler obtained power legally?
can nobody really see the sarcasm in this post?
if a law abiding citizen was carrying a firearm in the theater then the death toll probably would not have been so high. this is why we need more CCWs issued to citizens.
nah, i'm fine. That kinda contradicts your point though.
You wanna give me an example of one of these spontaneous shootings out of anger by carriers of a CCW license?
How so? You can make as many claims as you wish but if you don't have any evidence to support your claims when they have been called into question then you aren't helping your point. I can actually show you evidence of legally concealed firearms being used in self defense. Do you have any evidence of the situation you have described?
Even if you're law-abiding it doesn't mean you don't drink or have a temper or anything that makes humans dangerous towards eachother.
I didn't describe a situation. I told you that just because someone might be a loyal citizen doesn't mean we should dish them out CCWs. I'm sure there are many situations but I'm too lazy to use one to back myself up :/ Also, you really flared up right there.
Well I appreciate your sensitivity. backs away
you don't just give a CCW to everybody, you give one to everybody who applies for one and fulfills the requirements and pasts the test. instead of denying them that right for ridiculous reasons. using California as an example, here CCW licenses are given but very sparingly. a regular person cannot get one because they are issued directly by your county sheriff. the sheriff is allowed to deny you a CCW for any reason whatsoever be it your political affiliation, where you live, something you said on facebook, or even just because he doesn't like the jacket your wearing. generally in California a CCW is only issued to celebrities, politicians, CEOs, rich people, and private security for rich people. the common man is almost never rightfully issued a CCW in California. laws like these prevent people from being able to defend themselves in life or death situations.
ITT teenagers who bases their knowledge on guns and their laws from what they saw on TV, movies, and video games.
Would you prefer there would no laws at all? That will surely help.
It truly does.
my point is either way it wouldn't make a difference
Yeah, and if criminals don't follow laws, then gun salesmen totally wouldn't either.
You don't have to get a gun legally. There's lots of black market salesmen who would be more than willing.
That's the point, the criminals wouldn't follow gun laws but everyone else would.