General Chat / Aurora Shooting

I'm still not seeing where this has anything to do with the wide ranged availability of guns and, especially, ammunition.

All I'm pointing out is that the issue of gun laws isn't as relevant here as everyone seems to think. More than a sizable majority of these weapons are going to be obtained through illegal or simply untraceable means. Maybe that meas the system doesn't work, but making gun ownership illegal or heavily restricted is not going to solve much of anything.

Automatic and semi-automatic rifles is still something I'm on the fence over. My father has one, and it's a blast to shoot at the range. The issue is people deciding that they're not going to confine it to a range; but then, how do we make the background checks any more rigorous than they already are? They're not exactly a mountain of paperwork, but it still involves time and checks to various agencies. Someone who meets the requirements (not ex-con, no mental instability, not dishonorably discharged from military, not underage, etc.) has no legitimate reason to be denied a firearm.

Depends on whether you define "legitimate" as "according to current law" or as a pretty simple ethical no-brainer.

If a group of children can't handle a, say, toy responsibly, someone will take it away from ALL of them. I don't see why that principle would have to be constricted to children.

If one child goes around breaking others' toys, you don't take the toys away from all of them, you put the one that's acting up in timeout.

If a group of children can't handle a, say, toy responsibly, someone will take it away from ALL of them.

...and this is what I consider bullshit.

^ Comes from the guy with the gun in his avatar.

What really strikes me everytime there's a shooting that the old Eddie Murphy SNL bit about the guy who killed Buckwheat is shockingly accurate, concerning media coverage of the killer.

^ Comes from the guy with the gun in his avatar.

And also the one who has a gun? in his name

And also the one who has a gun? in his name

Back to topic, please.

I've already seen people running away with the "He identified as agnostic, therefore all atheists are heartless assholes" argument. Kind of pisses me off, but I guess it's really to be expected. Because, you know, everyone blames Hitler's Christianity for his actions.

Some people are simply shitty people. All we as a reasonable society can do is try to contain them without inconveniencing everyone else (too much - and thus the debate comes in).

Doesn't it depend what kind of toy it is? If the toy is considered dangerous it's requested that all parents take it away from their children and that factories stop producing them.

If one child goes around breaking others' toys, you don't take the toys away from all of them, you put the one that's acting up in timeout.

Guns aren't toys.

If you want to go exaggerating, let's go for the gold. If one mentally unstable guy shot up a school with his rocket launcher, they shouldn't take them away from all of us, right? The rest of us only use our rocket launchers at the rocket range, safely.

Guns aren't toys.

If you want to go exaggerating, let's go for the gold. If one mentally unstable guy shot up a school with his rocket launcher, they shouldn't take them away from all of us, right? The rest of us only use our rocket launchers at the rocket range, safely.

Exactly. Why do people need automatic guns? THERE IS NO NEED. It's more of a hazard than is necessary to protect your home. If you gun-lover's argument for arms is based around protecting one's family, then a PISTOL is all you need to do so. Get those other guns out of the system and keep them heavily regulated for military use only. If the baddies (criminals and gangsters) are going to get those automatic guns illegally anyway, then there's nothing we can do to stop them. But at least let's not allow the undetectable crazies (like the guy in Aurora)to just pick one up off ebay like it's a pair of shoes.

So you say it's a cultural issue? Well yes, it is. The swiss don't have regulations like America, but that's because they don't kill each other with guns! That's why we NEED heavy regulation for guns because Americans have a strong tendency to murder each other with them. Isn't that just LOGICAL?

Cars are more deadly than guns, in every first-world country I've read on. I'm sure that's not true for countries in Africa, but regardless. So should we limit all cars to 60mph? 30? Ban cars that go fast because those that are poorly handled can result in several deaths at once? Automobiles accounted for 43,000 deaths in 1997, murder by firearm accounted for 14,000. That's a bit skewed, obviously, because few people set out to murder someone with a car, but you get the point. Mishandled objects are dangerous.

"Assault weapons" account for less than 1% of crime. They're not used in defense, either (unless you really really wanted to, I guess? Wouldn't be necessary; if you were at your home you'd likely have a home defense shotgun, and out in public you will more than likely have either a concealed or open-carry handgun), mainly as range guns - target practice and the sort. Whatever is banned, criminals will either get it anyway or get something else. Walking into a theater with four handguns won't really be that much different. Automatic weapons are nearly impossible to obtain, and I believe his rifle was semi-auto. Just as deadly as a semi-auto pistol if he's had any training with it.

Most of self-defense involving firearms doesn't even involve firing the weapon. Roughly 90% of "Defensive Gun Uses" dissuade the attacker without a shot being fired. Would that have worked in Aurora that night? Probably not. But that's got nothing to do with the gun laws, and has everything to do with that motherfucker having (probably illegally obtained) armor and the intent to kill as many people as possible. For whatever reason.

Statistics from CDC, 1997.

He did not have an automatic firearm, he had an semi- auto AR-15 (which, mind you, is used for hunting) where he bought a 100-round drum (This is really the only thing you guys can argue). He had two glocks and a shotgun to boot. These weapons you cannot say should be banned because they can be used for (1.) Hunting and/or (2.) self-defense.

I think verti said it right when the homicide and most crimes in america are a cultural problem.

And how can you make a credible opinion about guns and gun control if you:
a. Have never shot a gun in your life
b. Eat the bullshit the news medias spoonfeed you.

Do you think because there is a higher murder rate in america, mostly due to the lack of values into some people, that more regulation is the answer? I find there to be no correlation between gun control and homicide/ violence. It is a cultural problem, so we need to change our culture to truly solve the problem.

And How is this isolated event about a mass murderer even about the guns? So what, it was his TOOL to create violence. Guns are nothing but TOOLS and it up the person to use it properly and ethically.

There's my 2 cents.

Do I need to repeat what I said?

High murder rate = cultural issue. Yes. So let's take away the tools needed for murder. Result = lower murder rate with firearms. Voila!

With heavily regulated gun control, the prices of guns sold on the black market will increase dramatically, leaving the poor thugs in the ghettos with no guns because they can't afford to shell out $10k for a pistol (made up numbers, don't quote me on it). As of right now, any old fool can buy a gun, and any old fool can do a drive by and get away with it. I don't see how you can argue otherwise.

And Ling, your automobile analogy is skewed. How many automobiles are used on a daily basis in the states? Millions? Yup. How many firearms are fired in the states on a daily basis? I HOPE that number isn't in the millions... Either way, guns were made for killing and automobiles were made for driving. If you use a car properly (no drinking/driving, concentrating while driving, no texting/phone calls, etc.) you should not be endangering the lives of other people. If you use a gun properly, well... someone dies. If you use a car improperly then someone dies, sure. But what is the result of the improper use of a gun? Oh, yeah, death. And please don't say the 'proper' use of a gun is for recreational shooting; we all know that that is not the main purpose of a gun and not the reason that guns were created. It just so happens that some people enjoy shooting. I don't judge as long as they aren't shooting a person.


"Automatic weapons are nearly impossible to obtain"
Read this: http://gizmodo.com/5...anyone-anything


"And how can you make a credible opinion about guns and gun control if you:
a. Have never shot a gun in your life
b. Eat the bullshit the news medias spoonfeed you."

a. you don't need to shoot a gun to know that guns kill people. That's like saying "how can you make a credible opinion about heroin and meth if you've never tried it?"
b. I'm not eating any bullshit. I'm making my own opinions because frankly I don't like the fact that people run around with guns. I prefer to live in a gun free society.

"It is a cultural problem, so we need to change our culture to truly solve the problem. "
You're simplifying the problem, isolating the cause to our cultural atmosphere when it takes two things to commit a murder in that magnitude: 1) a murderer 2) a gun. You won't have the same murder statistics without a gun in the murderer's hand; it takes a lot longer to kill a group of people when you only have a knife.

With the amount of bigotry and ignorance in our country, I don't find this possible to just simply "change our culture". Yes, it's up to a person to use a gun properly and ethically. However, Americans have proven that this is NOT possible. The solution should be to take their guns away; why give the murderers the tools they need to commit their crime when we can simply take away those tools?

I wouldn't consider killing another person "properly" using a gun.

Well, you're wrong, because what they're designed for

I don't understand why one needs a gun. The best war that was ever fought, in my opinion, was the Cold War. No deaths were involved, and he opposing countries accomplished a compromise simply by using wit and communication. I hate being disgraced by any American who owns a gun just for shit's sake of owning a gun.

That was a very bad paragraph...

Well, you're wrong, because what they're designed for

You understand literally nothing about this.

Avanine, I'll have to read the rest of your post tomorrow. I obviously have no "guns fired" statistic for you, but there are something like 230 million legally owned in the United States, distributed throughout about one quarter of the population.