Cinema Shooting - Political Thread

[Bugfatty300]

But it's in no way an interesting statement. It's like "If you want to murder people, the fact that murder is illegal isn't going to stop you".

I didn't make the statement and hold no water in it so it is inconsequential to me if it interesting or redundant. I was just commenting on it but you're right, I was thinking the same thing.

I don't know that there's any causal relationship, or even a correlation between gun ownership rate and homicide rate between countries.

I don't think there is one. Not beyond the simple observation hat the presence of guns is needed for there to be gun related violence.

Just off the top of my head I can tell there is practically no correlation to homicide rate in those statistics I posted.

 

[Save_Ferris]

I'm not sure if this is just an awful stereotype, but I'd assume a lot of guns in Canada are used for hunting instead of self-defense. The same goes for a lot of red states. In fact, most of these shootings have happened in urban areas with relatively high gun restriction as opposed to, say, rural Texas.

 

[cegman]

Nah you get crazies in the rural areas we had one hunter shoot a group of hunters who came across him while he was trespassing. From what I remember of the situation the group didn't do anything overtly threatening but I could be wrong. I don't want to link to the specific instance as it might start another debate but it does happen.

 

[amadeus]

Perhaps 20000 thousand laws on gun control is the problem. There should be one law on gun control in both the US and Canada, that you cannot own a gun of any form without very good reason and a licence (which needs reviewing every year), you would need an interview and references to be able to own a gun.

1. Who determines "good reason?"
2. How would that have stopped the theater killings?
3. How would that stop someone from getting a gun illegally?

 

[Aroddo]

1. Who determines "good reason?"
2. How would that have stopped the theater killings?
3. How would that stop someone from getting a gun illegally?

1. The legislature.
2. Won't stop all killings, but will lower killings.
3. By making it harder. In theory, the USA has law enforcement.

 

[Masada]

3. By making it harder. In theory, the USA has law enforcement.

Australia makes it very hard and we still get criminals being caught with all kinds of stuff. We also benefit from being on our own damn continent.

 

[Artifis]

I have always found it very hard to buy the "if we don't do it, somebody else will" justification. It's all the pity that in America this argument actually makes sense because of the millions of guns already in circulation. And besides, people always talk about gun control, only to not touch it because of the dear National Rifle Association.

The problem in America is two-fold:
1. Controlling the guns being sold.
2. Controlling the guns that have been sold.

Any takers?

 

[warpus]

What is the point of your second amendment anymore?

Technically the 2nd amendment is there so that Americans can rise up against their government if it becomes too tyrannical.

Right Americans?

 

[Formaldehyde]

I always thought it was so we could form militias and fight the traitors when they do eventually rebel again.

 

[Antilogic]

Private property is private property. You might as well ask what the point of having the right to peaceful assembly is if my friends and I can't camp out in your driveway without your permission.

And yet for some reason we can't own negroes any more. What's up with that?

The "it's private property!" argument is nonsense. Does it extend to chemical weapons as well?

Perhaps 20000 thousand laws on gun control is the problem. There should be one law on gun control in both the US and Canada, that you cannot own a gun of any form without very good reason and a licence (which needs reviewing every year), you would need an interview and references to be able to own a gun.

Whether in Canada or the US very few private citizens have any real reason to own guns, especially those who live in a city.

This is simple and to see this as the case is not rocket science.

The number of laws in different municipalities and states is a huge problem. Someone can buy in an area with lax regulation, then take the weapon into a regulated area, thus making those regulations meaningless. Or, you can buy at a gun show without waiting periods, etc. that other people go through at gun shops. The laws have more holes in them than the <SNIP>! It's too soon!

The problem in America is two-fold:
1. Controlling the guns being sold.
2. Controlling the guns that have been sold.

I'll agree with that distinction.

Technically the 2nd amendment is there so that Americans can rise up against their government if it becomes too tyrannical.

Right Americans?

And here I was thinking it was to legalize the state militias against Indians and foreign invaders since the national army was disbanded after the revolution.

 

[Farm Boy]

The effect gun control laws have on violent crime in the states is a nightmare to try and sort out statistically and relatively minor if present at all. Of far more import on overall violence rates(not just the "flashy" stuff) are population density, poverty, and the proximity of wealth to poverty. A densely packed poor area bumping up against an area of material abundance is almost inevitably going to spawn illegal and violent enterprise no matter what tools of violence are chosen.

 

[warpus]

Just throwing this out there

 

[cegman]

Technically the 2nd amendment is there so that Americans can rise up against their government if it becomes too tyrannical.

Right Americans?

I'm pretty sure there are a few of the Founding Fathers that would've felt that way. I'm pretty sure there were some others that would've disagreed.

Honestly it is a lot harder to control a group of people without controlling the weapons available to them. Of course even George Washington managed to do it.

 

[Murky]

Just throwing this out there

Just so you know

http://www.americablog.com/2012/07/is-it-easier-to-buy-gun-than-french.html

So, the cheeses in the graphic are not banned per se. They're only banned if they're made with raw milk that hasn't been aged a minimum of 60 days. And if they're made with pasteurized milk, they're fine.

But yes, it's crazy easy to buy a gun in the USA if you got the money.

 

[NBAfan]

I don't see how more gun control laws would stop someone like this. If someone is set on killing like this guy was, he will find a way to do it, all the laws in the world won't stop him. Think about it, all one has to do to kill someone is get in a car and run someone over.'
This is probably more indicative of our violent culture then lack of regulation.

 

[galdre]

If you really want to lower crime rates over all lower the poverty rate.

Wouldn't do anything about the guy who went into the theatre, but neither would gun control laws IMO, he would have just found another way to kill people if he could not get his hands on guns

 

[Antilogic]

On a related note, Slate had this article describing why the body armor was more concerning than the weapons:

But that wasn’t the scariest thing about him. Mass murderers are generally well-armed.

...

Holmes’ outfit blew these jokers away. He wore a ballistic helmet, a ballistic vest, ballistic leggings, a throat protector, a groin protector, and tactical gloves. He was so well equipped that if anyone in that theater had tried what the National Rifle Association recommends—drawing a firearm to stop the carnage—that person would have been dead meat. Holmes didn’t just kill a dozen people. He killed the NRA’s answer to gun violence.

The article goes on to compare the SWAT gear Holmes was wearing to breaking down the MAD system with a strategic missile defense system.

 

[Farm Boy]

So... advocates of gun control should be pressing harder for regulation of defensive gear rather than firearms?

 

[Antilogic]

So... advocates of gun control should be pressing harder for regulation of defensive gear rather than firearms?

I think he's highlighting an under-considered part of this argument rather than that particular resolution.

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, I guess I am just not following that well. Most gun control advocates seem to build their foundation upon the premise that restricting private access to firearms takes away a dangerous tool of violence while allowing the police force to provide defense of the population without the necessity of personal armament.

It seems to me that if we are going to rely essentially entirely on the police for protection, equipment that renders their violent response mechanisms less effective is more destabilizing than the guns themselves. Sort of like how a defensive missile shield or counter-force offense is more destabilizing to a M.A.D. balance of power than is a new or additional offensive counter-value weapon.