General Chat / Aurora Shooting

Fair enough (and I'd be on board with most of that, so long as "health" is limited to mental health, which we already technically have). These kinds of tests are in place for federal carry permits. My father is a senior airline pilot and thus is allowed to carry certain kinds of pistols with him when flying (on-duty or off; if he's not acting pilot he can act essentially as air marshal), however he does have to go in for "training" every six or nine months (pretty sure it's nine, but anyway). I personally rather enjoy gun classes and marksmanship classes and things of the sort, so I'd be all for that.

Taking away legal gun ownership only takes things away from those who would get them legally.

Taking guns away makes it more difficult to obtain one, whether you're a civilian or a criminal. Sure it won't absolutely STOP gun shooting sprees, but it will PREVENT them. Look at the Netherlands: people say "Oh, they had a gun ban, but look ,50 people died in a shooting spree!" Well how many shooting sprees has there been in the Netherlands? Oh, that singular incident in the past 50 years. How many in America? Almost one every year, and I'm probably underestimating.

Look at Europe. Notice the almost total ban gun. Notice the low gun-related fatalities. Now look at America. Notice the almost unregulated sales of guns. Notice the high gun-related fatalities, rivaling the statistics of South Africa and Brazil. Now I know we can't say this is the sole cause of the gun ban in Europe because the American culture is a huge part of the problem, but if we take away half of the equation then would the problem be reduced? After all, it takes 1) a murderer and 2) a gun, to commit a mass shooting. Making it more difficult to obtain guns would root out the majority of crazies that would have just purchased one (or four) online without a hitch.

Anyway, I would be more moderate about gun laws instead of outright banning them in America because I don't think the citizens would be very pleased if that were to happen; Americans are too attached to their guns to give them up (and the 2nd amendment backs it up too). So I would be more in support of strict gun regulation like MA showed: Have guns be like cars, get a permit, training, licensing, etc. to be able to own one, to make sure gun owners are RESPONSIBLE for their actions.

And what is this about Americans ALWAYS being so paranoid about robberies and thefts? This isn't a problem in other countries, why is it a problem here? You don't hear the Europeans or Asians clamoring for guns to protect themselves from criminals...
If you're really scared about people breaking in to your home, move to a safe neighborhood, or install security systems.

Taking guns away makes it more difficult to obtain one, whether you're a civilian or a criminal. Sure it won't absolutely STOP gun shooting sprees, but it will PREVENT them. Look at the Netherlands: people say "Oh, they had a gun ban, but look ,50 people died in a shooting spree!" Well how many shooting sprees has there been in the Netherlands? Oh, that singular incident in the past 50 years. How many in America? Almost one every year, and I'm probably underestimating.

Or... three in the past twenty years? Also, the Netherlands has LESS THAN 10% of the population (actually about 5.4%, according to Wikipedia's 2012 statistics) of the United States. It would be more appropriate to compare to a single state in the United States.

Look at Europe. Notice the almost total ban gun. Notice the low gun-related fatalities. Now look at America. Notice the almost unregulated sales of guns.

This is kind of irrelevant at this point, as there are already over 200 million firearms in circulation here, and I think more gun manufacturers exist in the United States than any other country. Kimber, Colt, Kahr Arms, Springfield Armory, and Glock are the big ones I can think of off the top of my head.

Americans are too attached to their guns to give them up (and the 2nd amendment backs it up too). So I would be more in support of strict gun regulation like MA showed: Have guns be like cars, get a permit, training, licensing, etc. to be able to own one, to make sure gun owners are RESPONSIBLE for their actions.

Agreed. Bear in mind though, the ownership of firearms was originally intended in case the government became totally overbearing and had to be overthrown by the dissatisfied majority. Not really sure that's an option anymore, but it's something to keep in mind for context.

And what is this about Americans ALWAYS being so paranoid about robberies and thefts? This isn't a problem in other countries, why is it a problem here? You don't hear the Europeans or Asians clamoring for guns to protect themselves from criminals...

With the Yakuza and the like, this is kind of a bad example in my opinion. It's not really going to make a difference if ten of them come to kill one guy, but nothing will really make a difference there, even if they all use their fists. I really have no fear of me and/or my girlfriend being attacked or robbed where we live. Some of that comes down to what you might call "small town" courtesy (the kind of place where everyone who lives on the same street waves at each other instead of flipping them off or ignoring them, like in California), but I attribute it, in large part, to any would-be robbers knowing they have about a 70% chance of walking into a situation where they are outgunned, even if they have one. Legally, illegally, auto or semi-auto, it doesn't matter, because walking in at a number disadvantage is just not worth it. So owning guns here is about fun/stress relief on the range, and dissuasion the rest of the time. My roommates keep rounds chambered, but due to the kind of handgun I will be getting, I will not.

Population doesn't matter if you look at statistics of deaths per capita. There is a 1994 study that showed that the U.S. accounted for 45% of gun related deaths out of 36 high-income countries surveyed; this included all of western Europe. The U.S. has statistics that rival South Africa and Brazil. I don't think anyone would argue that the U.S. doesn't have a gun problem.

As for the guns already in circulation, there are ways to fix that either with gun buyback programs, or outright banning possession of guns of a certain nature, etc. I am not educated enough on this end of legislation to speak about what can be done, but I'm sure there can be a solution.

Interesting Article

Just imagine what would've gone down had every single person (or even 5 or 10 people) in the the theater, had pulled a handgun when shots were first fired.

As for the guns already in circulation, there are ways to fix that either with gun buyback programs, or outright banning possession of guns of a certain nature, etc. I am not educated enough on this end of legislation to speak about what can be done, but I'm sure there can be a solution.

This is flawed because of the above statistics. A sizable majority of guns used to commit crimes, murder, etc., were obtained through untrackable means. The only people you're forcing guns from are those that obtained and retained them completely legally.

One of the main things there (in Camcorder's article) is that training is extremely important, and beneficial for a variety of reasons and situations. While it may be impractical to require it as a prerequisite (principle of dissuasion), I certainly think it's a good idea. I'm lucky to have a place within 50 miles that does tactical training with civilians at their own range.

http://www.washingto...ac16W_blog.html

"small town" courtesy (the kind of place where everyone who lives on the same street waves at each other instead of flipping them off or ignoring them, like in California),

There are three major urban (admittedly sprawling) areas in California, the rest is just as "small town" and rural as the rest of the country.

Yes, I was being sarcastic, and commenting on my experience from living in both. Way to, once again, completely miss the point.

Tweets and News stating that "Batman" himself went and visited the hospitalized victims. I kind of thought that Bale was a punk actor expecially after his outburst on the movie set, but at least now I can see his heart is in the right place...and God bless him for that.

My Prayers go out to all...

I kind of thought that Bale was a punk actor expecially after his outburst on the movie set, but at least now I can see his heart is in the right place...and God bless him for that.

Huh, I guess it did work.

This is flawed because of the above statistics. A sizable majority of guns used to commit crimes, murder, etc., were obtained through untrackable means. The only people you're forcing guns from are those that obtained and retained them completely legally.

One of the main things there (in Camcorder's article) is that training is extremely important, and beneficial for a variety of reasons and situations. While it may be impractical to require it as a prerequisite (principle of dissuasion), I certainly think it's a good idea. I'm lucky to have a place within 50 miles that does tactical training with civilians at their own range.

If possession of certain weapons were deemed a federal offense, then a criminal that is found to be carrying one would not only lose the weapon but be jailed. No shooting required. Just possession.

Oh and "legal" means of obtaining weapons right now is laughable. Got cash? Go to walmart. Got a credit card? The internet is yours for the picking. This is ridiculous.

Like I previously mentioned, I'm not for a prohibition of weapons; that is pretty much impossible. I'm definitely for a restriction of the types of weapons available, and for the tightening of regulations regarding purchasing/owning a gun (like a car).

If possession of certain weapons were deemed a federal offense, then a criminal that is found to be carrying one would not only lose the weapon but be jailed. No shooting required. Just possession.

So they wouldn't carry it all the time, obviously. I wouldn't even carry mine all the time once I get it, mainly because the majority of my time is spent on a university campus (where all firearms are illegal on all personnel except police officers). I'd just take it when I went shooting or hiking. No cops would ever know I had it, legally or not.

So they wouldn't carry it all the time, obviously. I wouldn't even carry mine all the time once I get it, mainly because the majority of my time is spent on a university campus (where all firearms are illegal on all personnel except police officers). I'd just take it when I went shooting or hiking. No cops would ever know I had it, legally or not.

Possession means not only on the body but ownership. Which means, any cop with a search warrant can root out potential weapons in a thug's home and charge them with a federal offense. But this is getting off topic anyway, I'm not a proponent of this idea. I mainly brought it up as one of many possible solutions to getting rid of current guns.

Yes, I was being sarcastic, and commenting on my experience from living in both. Way to, once again, completely miss the point.

Don't blame me for your poorly communicated irony.

Just found an interesting article about how even German police officers in comparison kind of don't use their guns.

http://www.theatlant...ple-2011/52162/

That would be respectable, except the writer's nose was so stuck up I'm not sure he could even see what he was typing. Seriously, that's the most "Wow, look at HOW MUCH BETTER WE ARE THAN YOU!" article I think I've ever read. To make matters better (or worse), all the related articles it links to are complete sensationalist reporting. This doesn't prove, suggest, or fix anything.

The tone does seem a bit biased but the data is still there: 85 in a year vs. 85 in one day against one person. There is not only something wrong with how we purchase guns, but how we USE them. Even in our police force.

You most like won't know this, but "Der Spiegel", in which the background article was published, is one of the oldest and most respected weekly journals in Germany. It was established in 1947 and has played a very important part in German history ever since.
http://en.wikipedia....iki/Der_Spiegel

The statistics that is shown was published by the "Deutsche Hochschule der Polizei", a state-operated police college, therefore it should be somewhat sustainable and trustworthy.

What all of this shows, and what you won't ever be able to successfully deny, whether you like it or not, is that the United States has significantly more fucking lunatics running around with the urge to shoot people than any comparable industrialized country.

What all of this shows, and what you won't ever be able to successfully deny, whether you like it or not, is that the United States has significantly more fucking lunatics running around with the urge to shoot people than any comparable industrialized country.

While I agree we have more, what you have to consider is the effect the simple difference in population has on that statistic. The issue here should be identifying the nuts, not trying to pull guns out of the system.

While I agree we have more, what you have to consider is the effect the simple difference in population has on that statistic. The issue here should be identifying the nuts, not trying to pull guns out of the system.

And how do you suppose that is done?