Another Massacre in Denver, CO

[Sylar]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18921492

Another sad story of someone running amock in the US state of Colorado with a gun, killing at least 14 people at a midnight screening premiere of the new Batman film, Dark Knight Rises.

How sad that 14 people (and the many more injured) went for a nice night at the cinema and won't be going home because of some idiot.

I dare say Denver in particular will be getting fed up having the international spotlight on it as a result of a shooting rampage, following on from Columbine 13 years ago.

They've arrested the guy who has since told police there are explosives in his home.

[VickMackie]

Crazy, and sad.

Sounds like the guys deranged if reports are true about how he was dressed. Like he's trying to be the character from the movie.

[DAVE1875]

Did they not say there was a second guy?

[VickMackie]

Just seen on bbc they think it was just one guy now.

[hibsbollah]

Cue a load of NRA nuts calling for more guns for 'defensive purposes'. :dunno:

[HibsMax]

Cue a load of NRA nuts calling for more guns for 'defensive purposes'. :dunno:

I'm not a gun nut, don't own a gun, but I do actually see the sense in that argument. It's not usually law-abiding gun owners that are the problem. Take guns out of "sensible" people's hands and then you end up with armed criminals and unarmed vicitms. If tightening gun control could guarantee that criminals couldn't get their hands on guns then I would be all for it. As it stands, I am not so sure.

I know this is a very sensitive topic and it's not my intent to use this tragedy to stir up a fight but when this happened I said to my wife.....surely THIS is a clear cut case where the death penalty is a fitting punishment? Is there any doubt about who did this?

[--------]

I'm not a gun nut, don't own a gun, but I do actually see the sense in that argument. It's not usually law-abiding gun owners that are the problem. Take guns out of "sensible" people's hands and then you end up with armed criminals and unarmed vicitms. If tightening gun control could guarantee that criminals couldn't get their hands on guns then I would be all for it. As it stands, I am not so sure.

I know this is a very sensitive topic and it's not my intent to use this tragedy to stir up a fight but when this happened I said to my wife.....surely THIS is a clear cut case where the death penalty is a fitting punishment? Is there any doubt about who did this?


Max, he may well have been arrested wearing a full suit of body armour, helmet, gas mask, carrying an assault rifle, and having left his home booby-trapped with highly-sophisticated explosive devices, but don't you think all that evidence could just be circumstantial?

I don't know what you do about people like this - learn as much as you can from him, then kill him, I guess?

We have gun control over here.

Unfortunately we also have the Metropolitan Police. They've probably killed almost as high a proportion of our population in the last 15-20 years as mad gun men have of the population of the US.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/19/ian-tomlinson-family-civil-case?intcmp=239

[HibsMax]

Max, he may well have been arrested wearing a full suit of body armour, helmet, gas mask, carrying an assault rifle, and having left his home booby-trapped with highly-sophisticated explosive devices, but don't you think all that evidence could just be circumstantial?

I don't know what you do about people like this - learn as much as you can from him, then kill him, I guess?

We have gun control over here.

Unfortunately we also have the Metropolitan Police. They've probably killed almost as high a proportion of our population in the last 15-20 years as mad gun men have of the population of the US.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/19/ian-tomlinson-family-civil-case?intcmp=239

I agree that if there is anything to be learned from people like this guy then we should not just arbitrarily kill him. In that case there would be more benefit in keeping him alive.

It's crimes like this that I find really upsetting. When one person murders another person for a reason, that's "almost" understandable (the person, in their mind, had a reason to kill the person they killed). But when you just open up and kill anyone who gets in the way of your bullets.....that's just takes it to a whole other level for me.

We have gun control over here too. If I can be arsed I'll see if I can find any reports on gun crime broken out by legal vs illegal weapons. Might be difficult to find an unbiased report.

[--------]

I agree that if there is anything to be learned from people like this guy then we should not just arbitrarily kill him. In that case there would be more benefit in keeping him alive.

It's crimes like this that I find really upsetting. When one person murders another person for a reason, that's "almost" understandable (the person, in their mind, had a reason to kill the person they killed). But when you just open up and kill anyone who gets in the way of your bullets.....that's just takes it to a whole other level for me.

We have gun control over here too. If I can be arsed I'll see if I can find any reports on gun crime broken out by legal vs illegal weapons. Might be difficult to find an unbiased report.


Sorry, Max, I didn't mean to suggest that there's no gun control in the States. I should have said, "We have in theory very strict gun control here in the UK" - although I'm not convinced that that control is anything like as effective as we'd like to think. There are a lot of people in West Central Scotland with connections to NI paramilitaries on both sides of the divide - I suspect that many of these guys would have no trouble getting hold of serious weaponry if they wanted to.

This guy in Denver was caught bang to rights - no doubt whatsoever he's guilty. I don't know how far it's worth asking why he did it, really. All those people dead, all that pain I wonder if he knows why himself.

[GhostofBolivar]

I'm not a gun nut, don't own a gun, but I do actually see the sense in that argument. It's not usually law-abiding gun owners that are the problem. Take guns out of "sensible" people's hands and then you end up with armed criminals and unarmed vicitms. If tightening gun control could guarantee that criminals couldn't get their hands on guns then I would be all for it. As it stands, I am not so sure.

I know this is a very sensitive topic and it's not my intent to use this tragedy to stir up a fight but when this happened I said to my wife.....surely THIS is a clear cut case where the death penalty is a fitting punishment? Is there any doubt about who did this?

I believe that when Gabby Giffords was attacked, there were witnesses carrying guns who didn't pull them out because they were frightened about being mistaken for the shooter. The attacker ended up being tackled by an unarmed bystander when he had to reload his Glock.

So what's the point of having a gun then? Oh wait, I'll ask Trayvon Martin...

The thing about these gun massacres is normally that the perpetrators aren't criminals until they start shooting people. They use legally puchased guns. So, for that matter, do many of the drug dealers. People with no record buy guns legally out of state, pass them on to a middle man, who sells them to the criminals.

You're never getting guns out of American society. There are too many untraceable guns in the hands of criminals. Too many untraceable guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens and too many right- and left- wing crazies who would never let the federal government take their guns, no matter what the reason.

So they could never get guns out of US society, but they could do a damn sight more to try to stop them getting to people who will do very bad things with them.

[mikewynne]

I'm not a gun nut, don't own a gun, but I do actually see the sense in that argument. It's not usually law-abiding gun owners that are the problem. Take guns out of "sensible" people's hands and then you end up with armed criminals and unarmed vicitms. If tightening gun control could guarantee that criminals couldn't get their hands on guns then I would be all for it. As it stands, I am not so sure.

I know this is a very sensitive topic and it's not my intent to use this tragedy to stir up a fight but when this happened I said to my wife.....surely THIS is a clear cut case where the death penalty is a fitting punishment? Is there any doubt about who did this?

...but wasn't he a 'law-abiding gun owner' until yesterday? His only run in with the law was a single traffic ticket. A certain percentage of previously 'normal' people will have severe mental issues at one point in their life and if they are armed thats a dangerous situation. In a society with 300 million people and the same number of guns it's unfortunately a statistical inevitability that this kind of thing happens repeatedly. If you arm more 'normal' people it would only happen more often.

[HibsMax]

I believe that when Gabby Giffords was attacked, there were witnesses carrying guns who didn't pull them out because they were frightened about being mistaken for the shooter. The attacker ended up being tackled by an unarmed bystander when he had to reload his Glock.

So what's the point of having a gun then? Oh wait, I'll ask Trayvon Martin...

The thing about these gun massacres is normally that the perpetrators aren't criminals until they start shooting people. They use legally puchased guns. So, for that matter, do many of the drug dealers. People with no record buy guns legally out of state, pass them on to a middle man, who sells them to the criminals.

You're never getting guns out of American society. There are too many untraceable guns in the hands of criminals. Too many untraceable guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens and too many right- and left- wing crazies who would never let the federal government take their guns, no matter what the reason.

So they could never get guns out of US society, but they could do a damn sight more to try to stop them getting to people who will do very bad things with them.

I would argue that a person with an untraceable gun is not a law abiding citizen. Otherwise the gun would be properly registered.

I'm not sure what more can be done to stop guns getting into the wrong hands at this point since, as you say, there are so many guns out there in the first place.

[HibsMax]

...but wasn't he a 'law-abiding gun owner' until yesterday? His only run in with the law was a single traffic ticket. A certain percentage of previously 'normal' people will have severe mental issues at one point in their life and if they are armed thats a dangerous situation. In a society with 300 million people and the same number of guns it's unfortunately a statistical inevitability that this kind of thing happens repeatedly. If you arm more 'normal' people it would only happen more often.

I agree. Not ALL gun crime is committed by known criminals with illegal guns. Just lots of gun crime is. That said, a lot of that crime is gang related and doesn't usually invoke Joe Public.

I'm not sure you can adequately protect society from people who are apparently "normal" then flip. Yes, if there are NO guns then it's more difficult for someone to go on a rampage but that's just not going to happen. And if someone was sufficiently motivated they could come up with other ways to kill lots of people at once. Guns, unfortunately, just make it easier.

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people". You either agree or disagree with that statement. I happen to agree with it. A gun doesn't make you a killer, you already have something wrong upstairs if you're planning on killing a cinema full of people. again, guns just make it easier. But they don't make you into a killer.

I think that if you arm more people you're more likely to see more accidents than rampages.


At the end of the day, the gun control debate will rage on but IMO its more important that we find out what makes a person break like this. There will always be crimes of passion, gang crime and accidents (which with proper care and training can be reduced) but its these one-offs that happen from time to time that cause the most controversy and debate.

[RyeSloan]

I agree. Not ALL gun crime is committed by known criminals with illegal guns. Just lots of gun crime is. That said, a lot of that crime is gang related and doesn't usually invoke Joe Public.

I'm not sure you can adequately protect society from people who are apparently "normal" then flip. Yes, if there are NO guns then it's more difficult for someone to go on a rampage but that's just not going to happen. And if someone was sufficiently motivated they could come up with other ways to kill lots of people at once. Guns, unfortunately, just make it easier.

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people". You either agree or disagree with that statement. I happen to agree with it. A gun doesn't make you a killer, you already have something wrong upstairs if you're planning on killing a cinema full of people. again, guns just make it easier. But they don't make you into a killer.

I think that if you arm more people you're more likely to see more accidents than rampages.


At the end of the day, the gun control debate will rage on but IMO its more important that we find out what makes a person break like this. There will always be crimes of passion, gang crime and accidents (which with proper care and training can be reduced) but its these one-offs that happen from time to time that cause the most controversy and debate.

Really so making it harder or near impossible for someone to own or obtain an assault rifle would not have any effect on their ability to carry out these outrages?

[heretoday]

Police, authorities and media are as usual puzzling as to why this guy did what he did. "What was his motive?" they say.

Do they really hope to somehow "learn from this" and avoid such carnage in the future?

For christ's sake he was a nutter and he had easy access to deadly weapons. And it's only a matter of time before it happens again.

End of story.

[GhostofBolivar]

Police, authorities and media are as usual puzzling as to why this guy did what he did. "What was his motive?" they say.

Do they really hope to somehow "learn from this" and avoid such carnage in the future?

For christ's sake he was a nutter and he had easy access to deadly weapons. And it's only a matter of time before it happens again.

End of story.

It's an observed phenomenon that it generally happens again on a smaller scale within a month of a large-scale, widely reported atrocity.

[GhostofBolivar]

I would argue that a person with an untraceable gun is not a law abiding citizen. Otherwise the gun would be properly registered.

I'm not sure what more can be done to stop guns getting into the wrong hands at this point since, as you say, there are so many guns out there in the first place.

Sorry, I was a bit unclear. There are guns out there that you could never find out what happened to. You don't need a permit to own a gun in Colorado, so you're probably never going to be tracked once you have one. You could be a perfectly law-abiding individual who owns a gun legally, but as far as the law is concerned, that gun doesn't exist.

[Sylar]

Police, authorities and media are as usual puzzling as to why this guy did what he did. "What was his motive?" they say.

Do they really hope to somehow "learn from this" and avoid such carnage in the future?

For christ's sake he was a nutter and he had easy access to deadly weapons. And it's only a matter of time before it happens again.

End of story.

I don't necessarily agree to that sentiment to be honest. From what we're learning about him, he clearly was quite reclusive and quiet, but all signs indicate just how puzzling this case is!

No "nutter" would be accepted onto a doctoral degree programme in such a competitive environment as neuroscience. He's clearly a very intelligent young man who had the world at his fingertips. It seems (from all accounts) that there's something as of yet undisclosed, perhaps from his personal life or past which set him on an unstable path.

I noticed the BBC focusing on the "academic struggles" angle, which again, I can't subscribe to. I've undergone my PhD for the past 3 years, have had big struggles and contemplated walking away from it a few times. As isolating, frustrating and miserable experience as it can be at times, the issues of a PhD candidate alone are not sufficient to drive the average person to commit something like this. I've also watched many people come through our office/department who have struggled badly and walk away - none of them resorted to pulling out firearms and laying the place to waste.

I'm also unsure where I fit into the gun law argument which has resulted (again) in the wake of this. On one hand, if people were "appropriately" armed (small calibre, fully licensed and checked out, gun concealed/displayed accordingly), this tragedy may not have reached the same magnitude. Imagine someone in the cinema sitting armed when this incident occurred being able to draw his firearm and drop the guy after he fire the first round. On the other hand, the widely available nature of firearms and the lax laws associated (particularly in the state of Colorado) means it's indiscriminate as to who can get a hold of these things. More possession = greater risk. All it takes is an argument getting out of hand of pressures of life building up to such a level where such radical action seems like a rationally acceptable outcome.

One thing which never fails to amaze me about the acceptability of firearm ownership in the US is the type of weapon one can obtain. For self defense purposes, I understand the right to possess something like a handgun or possibly even a shotgun. I even get the ownership of rifles, for both self defense and hunting purposes. Why would anyone ever NEED something like an M16 or AR-15 fully/semi-automatic assault rifle, or a MAC-10 semi-automatic pistol? These guns have absolutely no purpose other than killing on an "industrial" level and should not be so widely available to the average US Citizen. I'm aware of the "right to bear arms" Amendment etc, but where do you draw the line? If an automatic weapon is acceptable, why not a RPG, grenades, .50 cal sniper rifle. Hell, why not a nuclear/chemical weapon?

In an election year, I doubt the issue will be touched upon, as none of the potential candidates will want to upset the gun totting voters in the deep south or northern hunting states.

[HibsMax]

Really so making it harder or near impossible for someone to own or obtain an assault rifle would not have any effect on their ability to carry out these outrages?

You're missing my point.

Firstly. The problem is not with guns, it's with people losing the plot and wanting to kill a bunch of people. If they couldn't get hold of a gun, and if the person really wants to kill some people...they'll find a way. Ease of gun ownership is not, IMO, what makes a person want to kill.

I said, more than once in my post, that using a gun makes killing people easier. I never tried to deny that. However, i can get a gun if I wanted but I'm not running around shooting people.

Secondly. If someone wanted to kill lots of people and if they wanted to use a gun, they could get hold of one from somewhere illegally.

I don't know where I can go to legally obtain an assault rifle. They're illegal to own in massachusetts without a special license.

[HibsMax]

Sorry, I was a bit unclear. There are guns out there that you could never find out what happened to. You don't need a permit to own a gun in Colorado, so you're probably never going to be tracked once you have one. You could be a perfectly law-abiding individual who owns a gun legally, but as far as the law is concerned, that gun doesn't exist.

You don't need a license? I didn't know that. I only know about the laws in Massachusetts and here you need a license. How hard it is to get one depends on what city you live in.

I think it's crazy that you can legally own a firearm without a license.

[HibsMax]

I don't necessarily agree to that sentiment to be honest. From what we're learning about him, he clearly was quite reclusive and quiet, but all signs indicate just how puzzling this case is!

No "nutter" would be accepted onto a doctoral degree programme in such a competitive environment as neuroscience. He's clearly a very intelligent young man who had the world at his fingertips. It seems (from all accounts) that there's something as of yet undisclosed, perhaps from his personal life or past which set him on an unstable path.

I noticed the BBC focusing on the "academic struggles" angle, which again, I can't subscribe to. I've undergone my PhD for the past 3 years, have had big struggles and contemplated walking away from it a few times. As isolating, frustrating and miserable experience as it can be at times, the issues of a PhD candidate alone are not sufficient to drive the average person to commit something like this. I've also watched many people come through our office/department who have struggled badly and walk away - none of them resorted to pulling out firearms and laying the place to waste.

I'm also unsure where I fit into the gun law argument which has resulted (again) in the wake of this. On one hand, if people were "appropriately" armed (small calibre, fully licensed and checked out, gun concealed/displayed accordingly), this tragedy may not have reached the same magnitude. Imagine someone in the cinema sitting armed when this incident occurred being able to draw his firearm and drop the guy after he fire the first round. On the other hand, the widely available nature of firearms and the lax laws associated (particularly in the state of Colorado) means it's indiscriminate as to who can get a hold of these things. More possession = greater risk. All it takes is an argument getting out of hand of pressures of life building up to such a level where such radical action seems like a rationally acceptable outcome.

One thing which never fails to amaze me about the acceptability of firearm ownership in the US is the type of weapon one can obtain. For self defense purposes, I understand the right to possess something like a handgun or possibly even a shotgun. I even get the ownership of rifles, for both self defense and hunting purposes. Why would anyone ever NEED something like an M16 or AR-15 fully/semi-automatic assault rifle, or a MAC-10 semi-automatic pistol? These guns have absolutely no purpose other than killing on an "industrial" level and should not be so widely available to the average US Citizen. I'm aware of the "right to bear arms" Amendment etc, but where do you draw the line? If an automatic weapon is acceptable, why not a RPG, grenades, .50 cal sniper rifle. Hell, why not a nuclear/chemical weapon?

In an election year, I doubt the issue will be touched upon, as none of the potential candidates will want to upset the gun totting voters in the deep south or northern hunting states.

Nutter doesn't mean dumb.

As for what guns you can / can't own, that's a state level thing. I agree that you shouldn't be allowed to privately own fully automatic weapons. Rifles for hunting. Yes. Shotguns for hunting and skeet shooting. Yes. Handguns for home protection. Yes. Assault rifles, machine guns, etc. hell no.

But then you get the "collectors" angle. Sue, collect, but the guns should be impotent.

I'm all for gun ownership but within limits.

[Steve-O]

Police, authorities and media are as usual puzzling as to why this guy did what he did. "What was his motive?" they say.

Do they really hope to somehow "learn from this" and avoid such carnage in the future?

For christ's sake he was a nutter and he had easy access to deadly weapons. And it's only a matter of time before it happens again.

End of story.


And others as usual are simplifying the matter so they don't have to think any further about it :rolleyes:

[Hibrandenburg]

"It' people that kill and not guns". Sorry I just don't buy that bull****.

In this country we tend to indulge in self justice more than most of our neighbours do. If someone is deemed to have crossed the line of acceptable behaviour then he can expect a knuckle sandwich, the thought of adding guns to the equation is truly frightening.

Whilst I agree that anyone in this country could get access to guns if they really wanted to, I also believe that anyone who tried to amass a deadly arsenal like this guy did, would be picked up on by the authorities.

There will never be a 100% guarantee that this sort of thing won't happen again, but giving easy access to fire arms for all is like leaving the medicine cabinet open in the nursery.

[HibsMax]

"It' people that kill and not guns". Sorry I just don't buy that bull****.
Why is it bull****? I'm not arguing this point as a proud gun owner, I don't have a gun, but how does having "easy" access to weapons turn someone into a killer? I put easy in quotes because I think a lot of people think that all you need to do is walk into a shop and buy a gun. Or go to a gun show. That might be true in some states but not all of them. I know I can't do that here in Massachussets.



There will never be a 100% guarantee that this sort of thing won't happen again, but giving easy access to fire arms for all is like leaving the medicine cabinet open in the nursery.
Access is not universally easy and it's certainly not (legally) available to all.


Again the focus is on "how easy it is to get guns" rather than "what made him into a killer" and, IMO, that is the wrong place to focus. Can you imagine if after hours of psychiatric evaluation that James Holmes admitted, "I only did it because owning a gun is so easy"?


I am sure there are some people who kill with a gun but would not kill using any other weapon e.g., a knife, because shooting someone from a distance is a lot easier than plunging a knife into their gut. I'm making an assumption here, I've never done either before. So those people could be prevented from killing by denying them access to a firearm but the point is still that these people are troubled in the first place.


I know it's an extreme example but Ted Kaczynski didn't need to buy a gun for his reign of terror.

[Hibrandenburg]

A gun can turn a radge into a killer. Think everyone has been in the situation when they've seen red mist. There have been times in my life that if I'd had a gun, then I may well have used it.

The gun lobbies parole is bull****, they'd have you believe that it's only the people who are to blame for gun murders and that's simply not true. Guns give people the means to murder without getting your hands dirty and without them many murders would not take place simply because the red mist had had a chance to subside.

[Hibbyradge]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18961630

[Future17]

It's an observed phenomenon that it generally happens again on a smaller scale within a month of a large-scale, widely reported atrocity.

Social contagion, often referred to more widely as "copycat" behaviour. Fascinating stuff. :agree:

[Sylar]

Nutter doesn't mean dumb.

As for what guns you can / can't own, that's a state level thing. I agree that you shouldn't be allowed to privately own fully automatic weapons. Rifles for hunting. Yes. Shotguns for hunting and skeet shooting. Yes. Handguns for home protection. Yes. Assault rifles, machine guns, etc. hell no.

But then you get the "collectors" angle. Sure, collect, but the guns should be impotent.

I'm all for gun ownership but within limits.

I'm aware nutter doesn't mean stupid. However, clearly he was a very well balanced and smart young man at one point and something has badly derailed him at some point. I just don't believe a "crazy disposition" or any such can explain this.

Even having replica fully- or semi-automatic weapons is dangerous. Most of these are very cheap and unlicensed and (please correct me if I'm wrong) are made into replicas by simply removing the firing mechanism. If someone gains control of a replica and decides to reactivate it by building the firing mechanism and pin back into the gun (any proper collector would know how to deal with dis- and reassembly) it becomes a very dangerous weapon indeed.

I'm somewhere between you and Hiberlin to be honest. The gun doesn't make him a killer - evidently something in his mind has snapped and he's resorted to this wholly destructive path as a result. If, say, someone in the UK (where the gun laws are very strict by comparison) had experienced such a breakdown, would we have seen a full on rampage like this? Personally, I doubt it. The ease of access to firearms (certainly in the state of Colorado, where the checks and acquisitions are a lot easier than, say, Rhode Island) gives him (and guys like Cho Seung-Hui, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris before him) an avenue to exact some form of "justice" (as they claim to have seen it). If he didn't have guns, I don't think such an incident would have occurred. There are some cases (murders of passion or motivated premeditation) where someone will kill another for a reason, and they are so determined that this will happen, be it stabbing them, strangling, smothering, running over with a car...However, in such indiscriminate cases like these, the distance and anonymity provided by the firearms almost makes this "easy" (I use that word unhappily, but I can't think of another right now).

But I agree that gun ownership in general shouldn't be vilified. If someone in that theatre had been carrying a firearm (though I know a lot of states won't let you carry a weapon in the open) and dropped him after the first couple, maybe a lot of heartache could have been saved. Although knowing the facts of the case now (that he masked himself from the audience using smoke grenades and had full body armour on) maybe it wouldn't have done much good. I guess we all seek some form of answer/explanation in cases like this.

[da-robster]

It's an observed phenomenon that it generally happens again on a smaller scale within a month of a large-scale, widely reported atrocity.

There's an interesting video from newswipe which contrasts what the media does with what they should do, it's pretty worrying: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8rMYyegT5Y

Also I'll just say there probably are shootings where others carrying guns could have stopped it, Norway being a good example, but this one wasn't one of them. In all likelihood there would have been even more deaths (two people firing guns in a packed, dark, smoke filled room would kill more people than one)

[HibsMax]

A gun can turn a radge into a killer.
No doubt. So can a knife, a car, a hammer, a screwdriver, etc. But I honestly don't believe that a gun can turn a radge into a murderer as in someone who is predisposed to killing. If that was the case then "red mist" wouldn't come into it.


Think everyone has been in the situation when they've seen red mist. There have been times in my life that if I'd had a gun, then I may well have used it.

The gun lobbies parole is bull****, they'd have you believe that it's only the people who are to blame for gun murders and that's simply not true. Guns give people the means to murder without getting your hands dirty and without them many murders would not take place simply because the red mist had had a chance to subside.

What you say is true for "in the heat of the moment" issues. That is not the case with this, nor Columbine. Those were premeditated, not on the spur of the moment. That is, these people were troubled in the first place and access to weapons just allowed them to carry out their "plan" more easily. I doubt it was the availability of guns that spurred them on in the first place.

I am not a lawyer nor do I have any legal background but I *think* the case you are describing is more akin to manslaughter than murder. I *think* murder is largely premeditated. But I agree with the essence of what you are saying and I've said so myself. Guns DO make it easier to kill someone. My argument is that they don't make someone into a deranged psychopath.

[HibsMax]

I'm aware nutter doesn't mean stupid. However, clearly he was a very well balanced and smart young man at one point and something has badly derailed him at some point. I just don't believe a "crazy disposition" or any such can explain this.
I know you're a smart fella, I didn't mean my remark to sound quite as blunt as it did.


Even having replica fully- or semi-automatic weapons is dangerous. Most of these are very cheap and unlicensed and (please correct me if I'm wrong) are made into replicas by simply removing the firing mechanism. If someone gains control of a replica and decides to reactivate it by building the firing mechanism and pin back into the gun (any proper collector would know how to deal with dis- and reassembly) it becomes a very dangerous weapon indeed.
I can't comment on the conversion but what you say sounds right i.e., I've heard the same thing myself. Of course the person still has to buy ammo which *should* be difficult but from what I am reading, it's not. All I can comment on is what I know about Mass. and that is to buy ammo you need a license.


I'm somewhere between you and Hiberlin to be honest. The gun doesn't make him a killer - evidently something in his mind has snapped and he's resorted to this wholly destructive path as a result. If, say, someone in the UK (where the gun laws are very strict by comparison) had experienced such a breakdown, would we have seen a full on rampage like this? Personally, I doubt it. The ease of access to firearms (certainly in the state of Colorado, where the checks and acquisitions are a lot easier than, say, Rhode Island) gives him (and guys like Cho Seung-Hui, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris before him) an avenue to exact some form of "justice" (as they claim to have seen it). If he didn't have guns, I don't think such an incident would have occurred. There are some cases (murders of passion or motivated premeditation) where someone will kill another for a reason, and they are so determined that this will happen, be it stabbing them, strangling, smothering, running over with a car...However, in such indiscriminate cases like these, the distance and anonymity provided by the firearms almost makes this "easy" (I use that word unhappily, but I can't think of another right now).
I know what you are saying, guns do make it easy, but there have been psychos out there who have resorted to other means. Given what we have read about Holmes already, he is obviously a smart and capable man. If he couldn't have gotten access to guns there doesn't seem to be anything getting in his way of planting a bomb somewhere....probably with more devastation. I think we're lucky that he didn't take that path to be honest. Many more deaths.


But I agree that gun ownership in general shouldn't be vilified. If someone in that theatre had been carrying a firearm (though I know a lot of states won't let you carry a weapon in the open) and dropped him after the first couple, maybe a lot of heartache could have been saved. Although knowing the facts of the case now (that he masked himself from the audience using smoke grenades and had full body armour on) maybe it wouldn't have done much good. I guess we all seek some form of answer/explanation in cases like this.
I actually think that if people in the cinema were armed it could have been much worse. First vigilante stands up to take down Holmes. Somoene sees Vigilante #1 with a gun and shoots him in the confusion. I can see how it might snowball into a shootout with innocent people shooting one another...and catching others in the crossfire. I read a story about a man who tried to shoot a dog attacking a young girl and her granfmother. The girl died from the dog attack and the well-meaning neigbour shot the grandmother while trying to shoot the dog...but she survived.

[Sir David Gray]

I see that a friend of one of the victims is planning to file a lawsuit against Warner Bros and also the cinema. :confused:

Whilst I cannot begin to imagine how he and everyone else who lost a friend or relative in the attacks on Friday is feeling, he would really be best advised to save his money instead of throwing it away on a case that has absolutely no chance of success.

Only in America, I guess!

[HibsMax]

Only in America is right. A litigious crowd for sure. Not sure what the grounds for the suit are. I would imagine that he/she won't be spending any money. Just a guess. There are lawyers over here with "no win, no fee" type deals but they only take slam dunks and a chunk of your settlement.

Suing WB seems like a futile effort to me. That would open up a can of worms for sure. Not sure what the cinema did wrong.

[lyonhibs]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18980974

I'm almost certainly over-simplifying things here, but given the discrete choice between reacting to a tragedy like this by either a) tightening (or in some States, just even introducing) gun controls or b) zooming out to your nearest gun shop to buy a handgun, wouldn't a) seem like the most logical, effective solution.

Surely the law of averages states that if people are going to off their nut - and they are all over the world, not just America - surely it's not better to have even MORE guns than before in circulation and relatively easily accessible?? :confused:

I just can't get into the mentality of "Yikes, crazy mother f****** just went off his rocker with a gun, I'd better get me one of those"

[HibsMax]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18980974

I'm almost certainly over-simplifying things here, but given the discrete choice between reacting to a tragedy like this by either a) tightening (or in some States, just even introducing) gun controls or b) zooming out to your nearest gun shop to buy a handgun, wouldn't a) seem like the most logical, effective solution.

Surely the law of averages states that if people are going to off their nut - and they are all over the world, not just America - surely it's not better to have even MORE guns than before in circulation and relatively easily accessible?? :confused:

I just can't get into the mentality of "Yikes, crazy mother f****** just went off his rocker with a gun, I'd better get me one of those"

I think the problem is that it's just too late. There are too many guns out there and too many people who will NOT give up their right to bear arms. I don't want people to give up that right but something has to be done about automatic / assault weapons. They do not belong in the hands of the general public. If you do "have" to own one then it should be secured somewhere that is NOT in your own home - somewhere registered like a gun club or something like that. But preferably it should be a case of :
Gun Store Clerk : How can I help you today, Sir?
Shopper : I would like an AK-47 please.
Gun Store Clerk : ****** off! Next please.


I can't say because it has never happened to me but I feel that if this happened in a cinema local to me, I would not be heading to the police station for my FID card. These incidents, while tragic, are not very common. By all means get a weapon for home protection but that's not what any of this is about.

[RyeSloan]

I think the problem is that it's just too late. There are too many guns out there and too many people who will NOT give up their right to bear arms. I don't want people to give up that right but something has to be done about automatic / assault weapons. They do not belong in the hands of the general public. If you do "have" to own one then it should be secured somewhere that is NOT in your own home - somewhere registered like a gun club or something like that. But preferably it should be a case of :
Gun Store Clerk : How can I help you today, Sir?
Shopper : I would like an AK-47 please.
Gun Store Clerk : ****** off! Next please.


I can't say because it has never happened to me but I feel that if this happened in a cinema local to me, I would not be heading to the police station for my FID card. These incidents, while tragic, are not very common. By all means get a weapon for home protection but that's not what any of this is about.

I don't agree with the argument that och well there is too many guns out there to deal with them so lets not bother.....thin end of a wedge that I would say.

Nor do I agree that these incidents are "not very common"..I suppose it depends on your definition of common but with a run rate of well over 1 every year for the last 2 or 3 decades they seem common enough. From the limited research I have done it also seems the vast majority are carried out using legally held weapons and the most common weapon is a hand gun.

Americans are blinded by their right to bear arms...I think this right has been somewhat twisted to suit the gun lobby and I think it's tragic that multiple and repeated mass murder events have down little or nothing to make people stop and think about what would be the correct path for their society to go down.

[HibsMax]

I don't agree with the argument that och well there is too many guns out there to deal with them so lets not bother.....thin end of a wedge that I would say.
That's good because I never said that. I said that I think it's too late. It's too late because there are already MILLIONS of weapons out there. To pass new bills that make gun acquisition more difficult IS a good idea but I think it's a little like closing the gate after the horse has bolted. Very few Americans are going to hand their legally owned guns back and even fewer will be turning in their illegally owned guns. I'm not sure how hard it is to get guns over the border from Mexico but that's something else to think about. It's a looong border to protect and we already do a pretty lousy job of that.


Nor do I agree that these incidents are "not very common"..I suppose it depends on your definition of common but with a run rate of well over 1 every year for the last 2 or 3 decades they seem common enough. From the limited research I have done it also seems the vast majority are carried out using legally held weapons and the most common weapon is a hand gun.
I haven't done the same research as you have but, off the top of my head, I can think of this incident, the one at Virgina Tech, the Washington Sniper and, of course, Columbine. Perhaps I am being lazy but I would like to see your research that shows there is well over one massacre / rampage per year. I am not talking about gun-related crime in general when I said "not very common". I was talking about events on the same scale as last week. It was reported as being one of the worst crimes of its sort in American history which doesn't imply this is happening multiple times every year.

I won't call this research but I read a comment on a news story that said that of all gun-related crime, only a tiny percentage is with legally owned guns. I'm hesitant to do my own research because it's not really something that can be done with a few internet searches. There are many conflicting "truths" out there.


SOME Americans are blinded by their right to bear arms...I think this right has been somewhat twisted to suit the gun lobby and I think it's tragic that multiple and repeated mass murder events have down little or nothing to make people stop and think about what would be the correct path for their society to go down.
Fixed that for you. :wink:

I agree with that to an extent. The law was written centuries ago when times were very different. America doesn't have to really worry about being invaded any time soon so there is no reason for every household to have a gun. Some Americans think that since the country was founded on these principles that we CANNOT change it. I disagree with that. They're called Amendments which implies change.

I have said it before and it bears repeating (at least to me it does). Simply having access to a gun does not make you into a killer, it just makes you a more effective killer. But you still have to be a killer in the first place.

Cigarettes kill more people each year than guns. Where's the outrage?

[RyeSloan]

That's good because I never said that. I said that I think it's too late. It's too late because there are already MILLIONS of weapons out there. To pass new bills that make gun acquisition more difficult IS a good idea but I think it's a little like closing the gate after the horse has bolted. Very few Americans are going to hand their legally owned guns back and even fewer will be turning in their illegally owned guns. I'm not sure how hard it is to get guns over the border from Mexico but that's something else to think about. It's a looong border to protect and we already do a pretty lousy job of that.


I haven't done the same research as you have but, off the top of my head, I can think of this incident, the one at Virgina Tech, the Washington Sniper and, of course, Columbine. Perhaps I am being lazy but I would like to see your research that shows there is well over one massacre / rampage per year. I am not talking about gun-related crime in general when I said "not very common". I was talking about events on the same scale as last week. It was reported as being one of the worst crimes of its sort in American history which doesn't imply this is happening multiple times every year.

I won't call this research but I read a comment on a news story that said that of all gun-related crime, only a tiny percentage is with legally owned guns. I'm hesitant to do my own research because it's not really something that can be done with a few internet searches. There are many conflicting "truths" out there.


Fixed that for you. :wink:

I agree with that to an extent. The law was written centuries ago when times were very different. America doesn't have to really worry about being invaded any time soon so there is no reason for every household to have a gun. Some Americans think that since the country was founded on these principles that we CANNOT change it. I disagree with that. They're called Amendments which implies change.

I have said it before and it bears repeating (at least to me it does). Simply having access to a gun does not make you into a killer, it just makes you a more effective killer. But you still have to be a killer in the first place.

Cigarettes kill more people each year than guns. Where's the outrage?

There is plenty outrage against cigarettes and these mass killers are the perfect example of how attitudes and societies acceptance of them can be changed.

This is a website I came across quite quickly: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

Dunno it's accuracy but would seem a strange thing to be making up if it's not at least reasonably correct.

I certainly take your point about how ingrained guns are in the USA and how difficult it would be to ever change that substantially but I suppose all I'm saying is that should't be used as an argument not to at least consider the damage they are causing and maybe consider efforts to reduce that....if anything the gun lobby seems to have been more successful in recent times and that gun ownership and the likes of open carrying rules are being relaxed rather than tightened. I know that it differs from state to state but from my rather distant perspective it would appear that the trend is going the wrong way.

"Simply having access to a gun does not make you into a killer, it just makes you a more effective killer. But you still have to be a killer in the first place"

Urgh. I take your point but it would seem strange for a society as a whole to be happy to make it's killers more effective.

Don't get me wrong..I actually like guns and have fired a few including a seriously fun day out (in controlled circumstances) where I fired everything from a hand gun to a shotgun to an AK47 so I actually understand a lot of americans love in with these things, what I (probably quite clearly) don't grasp is the general acceptance of them in the hands of the general public as an everyday item and the argument that somehow there presence there does not increase the danger to the public as a whole.

[HibsMax]

There is plenty outrage against cigarettes and these mass killers are the perfect example of how attitudes and societies acceptance of them can be changed.

This is a website I came across quite quickly: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

Dunno it's accuracy but would seem a strange thing to be making up if it's not at least reasonably correct.

I certainly take your point about how ingrained guns are in the USA and how difficult it would be to ever change that substantially but I suppose all I'm saying is that should't be used as an argument not to at least consider the damage they are causing and maybe consider efforts to reduce that....if anything the gun lobby seems to have been more successful in recent times and that gun ownership and the likes of open carrying rules are being relaxed rather than tightened. I know that it differs from state to state but from my rather distant perspective it would appear that the trend is going the wrong way.

"Simply having access to a gun does not make you into a killer, it just makes you a more effective killer. But you still have to be a killer in the first place"

Urgh. I take your point but it would seem strange for a society as a whole to be happy to make it's killers more effective.

Don't get me wrong..I actually like guns and have fired a few including a seriously fun day out (in controlled circumstances) where I fired everything from a hand gun to a shotgun to an AK47 so I actually understand a lot of americans love in with these things, what I (probably quite clearly) don't grasp is the general acceptance of them in the hands of the general public as an everyday item and the argument that somehow there presence there does not increase the danger to the public as a whole.

Yeah, cigarettes was a dumb example and I knew it before I posted but I left it there. You're right, there is a LOT of work being done but it strikes me as being really weird that even though they kill ???? certainly thousands on a yearly basis that we don't hear about it on a daily basis. But that's a different debate altogether.

"That's a different debate!!" (Sorry, "Airplane") :)

I think one of the biggest issues when talking about guns is that it's not as simple as YES or NO. There are shades of gray in there too. In my opinion you should be allowed to own weapons, and even keep them at home, but within reason. Each person will further complicate things by disagreeing on what is reasonable. A handgun is reasonable. A rifle is reasonable (certain rifles I mean). A shotgun is reasonable (but not necessary a fully automatic version). If I am being blunt, it's ****ing dumb to allow citizens to own anything else. Nobody needs a machine gun. Even being a collector is not a great excuse. If you want a replica, make sure it IS a replica and not something that can be converted by inserting a firing pin. The barrel should either be permanently sealed or not functioning in the first place.

I'll check out that link you sent. Thanks. The reason I don't like the online research is that I don't know who I can trust. Most people have an agenda and their stats / findings will most likely have a bias towards that. It wouldn't surprise me if NOBODY knows how many people are killed by legal vs illegal guns.

I am not even that comfortable with license to carry a concealed weapon. That's scary. I am sure that most people are responsible but it doesn't take many seconds to figure out a flaw. Man has license to carry a concealed weapon. Something happens to man (hit by car, collapses, mugged, anything). Gun gets into wrong hands. Another untraceable gun on the streets (yes it's traceable but only back to the legal owner who no longer has said gun).

There was an unfortunate event a couple of weeks ago. LINK (http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/07/police-kill-man-at-wrong-house-for-opening-door-with-gun/). Arguably the man would still have been alive if his "home protection" didn't result in him being shot to death. :( I won't comment on the commentary in that link I sent, that was just the first one that came up when I googled the story.

[Steve-O]

No doubt. So can a knife, a car, a hammer, a screwdriver, etc. But I honestly don't believe that a gun can turn a radge into a murderer as in someone who is predisposed to killing. If that was the case then "red mist" wouldn't come into it.



What you say is true for "in the heat of the moment" issues. That is not the case with this, nor Columbine. Those were premeditated, not on the spur of the moment. That is, these people were troubled in the first place and access to weapons just allowed them to carry out their "plan" more easily. I doubt it was the availability of guns that spurred them on in the first place.

I am not a lawyer nor do I have any legal background but I *think* the case you are describing is more akin to manslaughter than murder. I *think* murder is largely premeditated. But I agree with the essence of what you are saying and I've said so myself. Guns DO make it easier to kill someone. My argument is that they don't make someone into a deranged psychopath.

That's just it though. This guy having automatic weapons etc made it easier to kill and injure more people than he possibly could have had he not had guns. I am not saying if he didn't have guns he wouldn't have snapped in some way eventually, however there may not have been as many casualties as there were.

Since Dunblane, has the UK even had any of these types of massacres?

[Sergio sledge]

That's just it though. This guy having automatic weapons etc made it easier to kill and injure more people than he possibly could have had he not had guns. I am not saying if he didn't have guns he wouldn't have snapped in some way eventually, however there may not have been as many casualties as there were.

Since Dunblane, has the UK even had any of these types of massacres?

The guy in the taxi a couple of years ago in Cumbria.

These sort of things just don't happen in the UK as often as the US but, I'm fairly sure that Canada has similar gun laws to the US but has a much lower instance of gun crime and massacres even normalised for population differences.

[Steve-O]

The guy in the taxi a couple of years ago in Cumbria.

These sort of things just don't happen in the UK as often as the US but, I'm fairly sure that Canada has similar gun laws to the US but has a much lower instance of gun crime and massacres even normalised for population differences.

Oh yeah, forgot about him. It's much less common in the UK though is it not? How many between Dunblane and the taxi maniac?

Agree on Canada though, I think that is correct. However I guess the smaller the population, the less likely it is, even if you do make the figures relative to population.

[Sylar]

Oh yeah, forgot about him. It's much less common in the UK though is it not? How many between Dunblane and the taxi maniac?

Agree on Canada though, I think that is correct. However I guess the smaller the population, the less likely it is, even if you do make the figures relative to population.

Very uncommon in the UK really. The Moat case was more of a spree killing than a massacre of sorts, so not really comparable.

I know it's not the most scientific of sources, but I seem to recall Michael Moore covering the variations in gun crimes across the globe in Bowling for Columbine and trying to determine why the US was consistently higher.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNWdsEfJ0cA

[HibsMax]

That's just it though. This guy having automatic weapons etc made it easier to kill and injure more people than he possibly could have had he not had guns. I am not saying if he didn't have guns he wouldn't have snapped in some way eventually, however there may not have been as many casualties as there were.

Since Dunblane, has the UK even had any of these types of massacres?

He could have planted one or more bombs which would have arguably killed / injured more. He had the know how.

But I'm not fighting over this because it's true - guns do make killing people easier.

[HibsMax]

Very uncommon in the UK really. The Moat case was more of a spree killing than a massacre of sorts, so not really comparable.

I know it's not the most scientific of sources, but I seem to recall Michael Moore covering the variations in gun crimes across the globe in Bowling for Columbine and trying to determine why the US was consistently higher.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNWdsEfJ0cA

I think crime in general is higher over here. Such a diverse bunch of people.

Slavery didn't help with race relations and thats still a big issue.

But that has little to do with last Friday.

Being rulers of the world comes with a price I guess. ;)

[Betty Boop]

[QUOTE=Hibbyradge;3303266]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18961630[/QUOTE

Has he been sedated ? Looks to be stoned out of his box to me.

[Sylar]

Has he been sedated ? Looks to be stoned out of his box to me.

They said he hadn't been sleeping and was "exhausted". Mass killing takes it out of you I guess...

[GhostofBolivar]

It's an observed phenomenon that it generally happens again on a smaller scale within a month of a large-scale, widely reported atrocity.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/reports-of-shooting-at-sikh-temple-in-wisconsin-8008764.html

[RyeSloan]

From Economist online:

Gun rights
A Stinger for Antonin
YESTERDAY on "Fox News Sunday", Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court justice, suggested that Americans may have a constitutional right to own and carry shoulder-mounted anti-aircraft missiles.

CHRIS WALLACE: What about…a weapon that can fire a hundred shots in a minute?
SCALIA: We’ll see. Obviously the amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried—it’s to keep and “bear”, so it doesn’t apply to cannons, but I suppose there are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.

CHRIS WALLACE: How do you decide that if you’re a textualist?

SCALIA: Very carefully.

Most gun-rights advocates will probably downplay Mr Scalia's remarks, but I applaud them. In fact, I think the only thing amiss here is Mr Scalia's weirdly literalist approach to the word "bear"; the first amendment's reference to "freedom of speech and of the press", for example, is generally held to apply to non-verbal communications as well. Besides, even though you can't carry an M1 Abrams battle tank, that shouldn't necessarily preclude you from "keeping" one. More important, though, Mr Scalia seems to be one of the few people in the judiciary who may be favourably disposed towards letting Americans own the only kinds of weapons that actually make sense, under the dominant justification that advocates currently provide for the importance of gun rights: the right to defend yourself against the government.

There are basically two ways of explaining why a right to own guns belongs in the Bill of Rights. The first is that it's part of the assumed natural right to self-defence against other citizens. The second, increasingly the main line of argument by gun-rights advocates, is that's it's necessary to prevent governments from arrogating tyrannical powers to themselves. Hence the ready response of a pro-gun-rights New York Times reader to an editorial calling for a compromise on gun control:

The 2nd Amendment was not written to protect hunters and recreational shooters. It was written as a safeguard against a government that might become so centralized and so powerful that it would pose a threat to the freedom of the citizenry and the Republic.
The same premise undergirds the gun-rights philosophy of the NRA ("America's First Freedom"), the Second Amendment Foundation ("the intent of [the second amendment] was to protect individuals from government powers"), and other gun-rights organisations. And indeed the Supreme Court relied on this interpretation of the second amendment's purpose in its 2008 decision in District of Columbia v Heller, which first established that the amendment guarantees an individual right to own guns. Many of the negotiating parties to the constitution, the court wrote, feared that the new federal government would act as Charles II had in 17th-century England, disarming rival militias so as to impose tyrannical rule. Hence the amendment's phrasing, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In his majority opinion, Mr Scalia glossed the amendment's prefatory clause thus:

There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be “necessary to the security of a free state.” First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large standing armies unnecessary—an argument that Alexander Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the militia. Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.
We can see something of a problem begin to develop here. Reasons one and two above are obviously anachronistic: militias composed of private gun owners are no longer useful in repelling invasions or suppressing insurrections; they are more likely to be the insurrectors. And obviously, militias no longer render the US Army unnecessary. What about the third one? Is a country whose "able-bodied men" are "trained in arms and organized" (and, one assumes, have access to guns) "better able to resist tyranny?"

Of course not. The idea that, in the modern world, a country full of people with private handguns, shotguns and AR-15s in their households is more likely to remain a liberal democracy than a country whose citizens lack such weapons is frankly ridiculous. Worldwide, there is no correlation whatsoever at the country level between private handgun ownership and liberal democracy. There are no cases of democratic countries in which nascent authoritarian governments were successfully resisted due to widespread gun ownership. When authoritarian governments come to power in democracies (which is rare), they do so at the ballot box or with heavy popular support; where juntas overthrow democratic governments, as in Greece, Brazil, Chile or Iran, popular gun ownership is irrelevant. Once authoritarian governments take power, if they decide they don't want citizens to own guns, they take them away, easily crushing any isolated attempts at resistance. When, on the other hand, authoritarian governments are overthrown in military uprisings (as opposed to peaceful revolutions, which are more common), the arms that defeat them come from defecting soldiers or outside aid. Widespread gun ownership among the common folk may conceivably have been an important obstacle to centralised government control in 17th-century Britain, just emerging from feudalism; but since the universalisation of the modern nation-state in the 19th century, the degree of force that governments can bring to bear has overwhelmed any conceivable popular defence of localised rights and privileges by companies of yeoman musketeers. To stack up against police, the National Guard or the US Army, private gun enthusiasts would, at a minimum, have to be packing an arsenal that would be illegal in any state in the union, even Arizona.

Indeed, lower in his opinion, Mr Scalia recognises this problem.

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

Because...why? Mr Scalia's claim here is that modern technological developments have rendered the second amendment meaningless with regard to its original intent, but that we have to continue enforcing it unchanged, regardless. Perhaps at some level the implicit cognitive dissonance here disturbs him, and this is why he is now considering whether citizens do have a right to keep and bear arms that might actually give the US military pause, such as surface-to-air missiles that could take out American helicopters and fighter-bombers—plus maybe land mines, shoulder-launched anti-tank missiles, or perhaps just IEDs, which had success in crippling light mechanised infantry in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Surely that could deter some federal tyranny!

This entire paradigm is absurd. Laws and regulations in America are determined by the actions of the legislature, the executive and the courts, with the consent of the voters; the level of gun ownership has nothing to do with anything. When congressmen debate liberty-related measures such as the health-insurance mandate or net neutrality, they don't worry about getting shot; they worry about getting re-elected. Once laws and regulations are in place, the government does not hesitate to enforce them because it is worried about resistance by gun-owning citizens. Widespread gun ownership by private citizens will no more deter the US government from enforcing the Endangered Species Act against property owners than widespread gun ownership by drug dealers has deterred the government from enforcing the Controlled Substances Act. Nor should it. If anything, widespread gun ownership forces the government to become more repressive and more invasive in its efforts to fight crime and prevent insurrection. This is the kind of vicious dialectic seen in countries like Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq and Burma, where dispersed gun ownership among rival ethnic groups leads to a see-saw with brutal dictatorial regimes, who see repression as the only means to keep the state from disintegrating.

Nonetheless, I applaud Mr Scalia for doing his part to make this aspect of the gun-rights debate clearer. If the purpose of the second amendment is to enable citizens to resist the government, then the entire regime of current gun restrictions needs to be overturned: citizens need to be able to buy fully automatic assault rifles, rocket launchers, military-grade explosives, remote detonators, armoured vehicles with mounted artillery, surface-to-air missiles, light bombers, armed drones, everything. If some citizens want to keep and bear arms in order to take on the power of the federal government, that's what it's going to take. And should those citizens decide to fully exercise such rights, then their second-amendment freedom will become the freedom to be attacked and crushed by the police and the US military, on behalf of those of us who support the integrity of the American government we have elected and the enforcement of its laws.

[RyeSloan]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/reports-of-shooting-at-sikh-temple-in-wisconsin-8008764.html

Another mass killing where the weapon of choice was a hand gun.

[HibsMax]

Very interesting read. I am in favour of restricted gun ownership but I do laugh when people bring up the "right to bear arms" because, as mentioned in that piece, the reasons were very different back then. While not impossible, it's highly improbably that citizens of the US will need to bear arms for the reasons given in the amendment. I think the amendment, which is clearly out-dated, needs to be amended. It shouldn't be cast in stone for obvious reasons. Times change.

[HibsMax]

Another mass killing where the weapon of choice was a hand gun.

To me the emphasis is totally wrong. Last time I read that story there were six people killed. To me that's what's important, not how they were killed.

Is the problem gun control or is the problem inside the killer's head? I'll spare you, I'm not going over the same ground again though. ;)

[RyeSloan]

To me the emphasis is totally wrong. Last time I read that story there were six people killed. To me that's what's important, not how they were killed.

Is the problem gun control or is the problem inside the killer's head? I'll spare you, I'm not going over the same ground again though. ;)

I don't think the two can be separated. The death toll is tragic and to me so is the fact that their method of execution remains off limits in terms of any meaningful control or desire to reduce it's availability.

While not comparable directly the substantial reduction in gun crime in the UK can, at least in part, be put down to improved policing methods and tougher sentencing. Action can be taken and situations improved if there is a desire to do so. Sadly too many Americans seem to desire the right to bear arms over the right of people not to be slaughtered by the very same weapons.

[RyeSloan]

Very interesting read. I am in favour of restricted gun ownership but I do laugh when people bring up the "right to bear arms" because, as mentioned in that piece, the reasons were very different back then. While not impossible, it's highly improbably that citizens of the US will need to bear arms for the reasons given in the amendment. I think the amendment, which is clearly out-dated, needs to be amended. It shouldn't be cast in stone for obvious reasons. Times change.

On this we can certainly agree :agree:

As an aside is there a name for an amendment to an amendment? :greengrin

[HKhibby]

I agree that if there is anything to be learned from people like this guy then we should not just arbitrarily kill him. In that case there would be more benefit in keeping him alive.

It's crimes like this that I find really upsetting. When one person murders another person for a reason, that's "almost" understandable (the person, in their mind, had a reason to kill the person they killed). But when you just open up and kill anyone who gets in the way of your bullets.....that's just takes it to a whole other level for me.

We have gun control over here too. If I can be arsed I'll see if I can find any reports on gun crime broken out by legal vs illegal weapons. Might be difficult to find an unbiased report.

Just shows the U.S. Exactly for what it is! a cowboy country!, stupid idiots that take films etc.. as reality, they are the ones that dont live in reality. the gun control in the U.S. is very easy to get round!...americans have very little common sense in general, just like their military!...useless! they have all the machinery and equipment, but cant use it properley nor have the knowhow to use it properley or have any stategy!...thats why everyone else has to help them out with the knowledge...but they will take credit for it every time!, and then the average american when something like this happens will blame it on something else or someone else...and always say not my problem!..thats americans and the good old U.SA!!

[HKhibby]

Max, he may well have been arrested wearing a full suit of body armour, helmet, gas mask, carrying an assault rifle, and having left his home booby-trapped with highly-sophisticated explosive devices, but don't you think all that evidence could just be circumstantial?

I don't know what you do about people like this - learn as much as you can from him, then kill him, I guess?

We have gun control over here.

Unfortunately we also have the Metropolitan Police. They've probably killed almost as high a proportion of our population in the last 15-20 years as mad gun men have of the population of the US.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/19/ian-tomlinson-family-civil-case?intcmp=239

How could you possibly compare the Metropolitan Police with this, one of the worlds finest and most skillfull forces!, yes there are mistakes, and if there are rogue officers etc... they should be caught and dealt with like everyone else...even more so infact!, any idea the size of the areas they have to police? and some of the nutt cases they come accross, so how anyone can compare the Met with a bunch of gun loving fanatical narrowminded and deluded americans doesnt add up!
And as for their policing!...a joke...just like their Military!

[hibsbollah]

Just shows the U.S. Exactly for what it is! a cowboy country!, stupid idiots that take films etc.. as reality, they are the ones that dont live in reality. the gun control in the U.S. is very easy to get round!...americans have very little common sense in general, just like their military!...useless! they have all the machinery and equipment, but cant use it properley nor have the knowhow to use it properley or have any stategy!...thats why everyone else has to help them out with the knowledge...but they will take credit for it every time!, and then the average american when something like this happens will blame it on something else or someone else...and always say not my problem!..thats americans and the good old U.SA!!

Hibs.net, without you, is nothing. :hilarious

[hibsbollah]

Back to reality, simars cut n pasted article from the economist above is superb. Logic at its infallible best with a bit of satire as well.

[Twa Cairpets]

Just shows the U.S. Exactly for what it is! a cowboy country!, stupid idiots that take films etc.. as reality, they are the ones that dont live in reality. the gun control in the U.S. is very easy to get round!...americans have very little common sense in general, just like their military!...useless! they have all the machinery and equipment, but cant use it properley nor have the knowhow to use it properley or have any stategy!...thats why everyone else has to help them out with the knowledge...but they will take credit for it every time!, and then the average american when something like this happens will blame it on something else or someone else...and always say not my problem!..thats americans and the good old U.SA!!

That's much more like it! Back to a proper exclamation mark count! You are very angry! About everything! Ten exclamations in one short paragraph!

Also, on topic, is there ever a time where you actually contribute something faintly relevant to the thread without recourse to sweeping generalisation or outraged polemics? I don't actually understand the point you're making relevant to the thread (assuming there is of a course a point and you're not just brain-dumping anger).

[Twa Cairpets]

Interesting short section from "The Young Turks"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeVG0C9HQc0&list=UU1yBKRuGpC1tSM73A0ZjYjQ&index=10&feature=plcp

[Hibs Class]

Just shows the U.S. Exactly for what it is! a cowboy country!, stupid idiots that take films etc.. as reality, they are the ones that dont live in reality. the gun control in the U.S. is very easy to get round!...americans have very little common sense in general, just like their military!...useless! they have all the machinery and equipment, but cant use it properley nor have the knowhow to use it properley or have any stategy!...thats why everyone else has to help them out with the knowledge...but they will take credit for it every time!, and then the average american when something like this happens will blame it on something else or someone else...and always say not my problem!..thats americans and the good old U.SA!!


:hmmm:

[HibsMax]

Just shows the U.S. Exactly for what it is! a cowboy country!, stupid idiots that take films etc.. as reality, they are the ones that dont live in reality. the gun control in the U.S. is very easy to get round!...americans have very little common sense in general, just like their military!...useless! they have all the machinery and equipment, but cant use it properley nor have the knowhow to use it properley or have any stategy!...thats why everyone else has to help them out with the knowledge...but they will take credit for it every time!, and then the average american when something like this happens will blame it on something else or someone else...and always say not my problem!..thats americans and the good old U.SA!!

Wow. Just wow. What do you know about average American or Americans in general?

[HibsMax]

How could you possibly compare the Metropolitan Police with this, one of the worlds finest and most skillfull forces!, yes there are mistakes, and if there are rogue officers etc... they should be caught and dealt with like everyone else...even more so infact!, any idea the size of the areas they have to police? and some of the nutt cases they come accross, so how anyone can compare the Met with a bunch of gun loving fanatical narrowminded and deluded americans doesnt add up!
And as for their policing!...a joke...just like their Military!

Ironic Post of the year for me. LOL.

[Sylar]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19250806