Shooting at Batman screening in Colorado

[Loveless]

If guns are made illegal, the black market will still sell guns and criminals will still get them. Banning them does nothing but limit the amount of people able to defend themselves.

If you've ever stepped outside the US you'd know that's a complete nonsense.

 

[AndThat'sTheBottomLine]

If you've ever stepped outside the US you'd know that's a complete nonsense.

Well considering I've never been outside the US. INSIDE the US however, it's a well known fact. You ban something, people will still find a way to get it.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

If you think the banning of weapons will stop gun-related homicides, accidents, etc. you're dead wrong.

Want proof of that? See Prohibition. When you want to curb the use of something, you don't ban it — you REGULATE it. Even parents know that the more you tell a child he/she CAN'T have/do something, the more he/she will want to.

 

[Slyfox696]

If you think the banning of weapons will stop gun-related homicides, accidents, etc. you're dead wrong.

I agree. The point is that it makes them MUCH less likely and MUCH more difficult to pull off. (The rest of my post is not directed towards you, just speaking in general)

Let's hypothetically say that no one in the United States owns a firearm. Will there be people who circumvent the law and obtain guns illegally? Yes, no rational person will dispute that. But the number of people who can actually do such a thing is VERY small, and limited to large criminal organizations with the right connections. This idea that every American will be a sitting duck to the gun-toting marauders that will show up on every street corner is silly. The fact is there will be FEWER gun-toting marauders, because most people won't be able to get a firearm.

The bans in Chicago and D.C. didn't work, but why would they? If I live in Chicago, I can drive 30 minutes to an hour to another town, buy my weapon and drive back. A city-wide ban on guns COULD prevent gun crime, but it's easy to see why it didn't/wouldn't. The only way this works is if it is a NATIONAL ban.

Again, will there be some people with guns still? Absolutely. But there will be FAR less incidences of gun crime against innocent people. And as I've said many times in other places, if gun sales were outlawed, there would be 12 people still alive in Colorado. It's really that simple.

 

[LoudClearVoice]

This has nothing to do with the legality of guns. The guy is sick in the head (although brilliant). Even if guns were illegal, he would have got them through black market sources anyway.

It's just like drugs. Drugs are illegal yet people still get them with relative ease.

People are missing the point and trying to turn this into a political issue. It has nothing to do with gun control. This sick fuck was going to commit the heinous crime whether or not guns were legal. The underlying issue is, how to notice warning signs of people that are mentally unstable and when you should report these suspicions. Many times after things like this happen, stories come out where friends or family will say "he was kinda weird" or "he did have this werid journal with all kinds of crazy stuff in it."

 

[Slyfox696]

This has nothing to do with the legality of guns. The guy is sick in the head (although brilliant). Even if guns were illegal, he would have got them through black market sources anyway.

He would have? Please direct me to your evidence of this. I'd like names of his black market sources (nicknames are acceptable), and all the other items he bought on the black market. I'll wait.

People are missing the point and trying to turn this into a political issue.

Because it very much is a political issue. When someone commits a massacre from weapons he legally obtained, it's absurd to turn a blind eye and say, "oh well".

It has nothing to do with gun control.

I know 12 people whose families might disagree with you.

This sick fuck was going to commit the heinous crime whether or not guns were legal.

But he wouldn't have been able to if gun sales weren't legal. At least not to the extent or manner he did.

The underlying issue is, how to notice warning signs of people that are mentally unstable and when you should report these suspicions. Many times after things like this happen, stories come out where friends or family will say "he was kinda weird" or "he did have this werid journal with all kinds of crazy stuff in it."

But no one is going to assume a person they know is going to commit a mass murder. There are hundreds of millions of people in this country every day who do not. And even if you do notice someone is acting kind of weird, there's nothing the police can do about "acting weird". But if the guy is seen buying a firearm, there IS something the police could do about that if gun sales were illegal.

This is really such a simple concept, I don't understand where the confusion is. If I offered you two telephone booths, one which had 3 large bees and one with 500 medium size bees, which booth do you take your chances in?

 

[smizzy]

If guns disappeared off the face of the planet, crime wouldn't end. The majority of assaults aren't gun related. If a human wants to harm a human, by God, they are going to hurt a human. Whether their method is to use an iron pipe, a lamp, their bare hands, a box cutter, switchblade, a gun, they will inflict the damage they, for whatever reason, feel they need to inflict.

It's not to say, banning guns won't help out, but it's not the magic solution. I for one believe in guns being regulated, but I see both side's cases.

 

[Slyfox696]

If guns disappeared off the face of the planet, crime wouldn't end. The majority of assaults aren't gun related. If a human wants to harm a human, by God, they are going to hurt a human. Whether their method is to use an iron pipe, a lamp, their bare hands, a box cutter, switchblade, a gun, they will inflict the damage they, for whatever reason, feel they need to inflict.

I agree completely. People have been hurting, maiming, and killing other people since the dawn of time. The difference is that it is SO much easier to do so now. If I get into an argument with someone, and we decide to throw fists, then so be it. We both get out our rage and we both have a chance to defend ourselves. But if we get into an argument and he pulls out a gun, what chance do I have to defend myself? One squeeze of the trigger, and I'm dead.

It's not that crime or violence will end because guns are gone, it's that the ease of killing becomes so much less. Fewer people would be killed, it's really that simple. There are far too many cowards in this country who crave that firearm in order to feel tough, like they are a big shot, like they are worthy of being on this Earth.

It's simply unacceptable for a society as civilized as we want to think ourselves to continue allowing innocent people to be defenseless victims of other people's random decisions.

 

[LoudClearVoice]

He would have? Please direct me to your evidence of this. I'd like names of his black market sources (nicknames are acceptable), and all the other items he bought on the black market. I'll wait.

Because it very much is a political issue. When someone commits a massacre from weapons he legally obtained, it's absurd to turn a blind eye and say, "oh well".

I know 12 people whose families might disagree with you.

But he wouldn't have been able to if gun sales weren't legal. At least not to the extent or manner he did.


But no one is going to assume a person they know is going to commit a mass murder. There are hundreds of millions of people in this country every day who do not. And even if you do notice someone is acting kind of weird, there's nothing the police can do about "acting weird". But if the guy is seen buying a firearm, there IS something the police could do about that if gun sales were illegal.

This is really such a simple concept, I don't understand where the confusion is. If I offered you two telephone booths, one which had 3 large bees and one with 500 medium size bees, which booth do you take your chances in?

Drugs are illegal. Why are there still hundreds of thousands of people that are addicted to drugs and dying from drug use every year? If they're illegal that means people can't get them, right?

If someone is an addict, they'll find a way to get drugs.

Alcohol was illegal in the US during prohibition, yet people still drank, and in fact, gangsters and bootleggers made it almost easier and cheaper to get alcohol than before it was legal but regulated.

As this case unfolds, we'll see that this guy has some very serious mental issues. I think it's ignorant to think that if it were illegal for him to buy guns, he wouldn't have committed the crime. Here's a guy planning mass murder but suddenly he's going to say "well since I can't legally buy any of these weapons, I guess I won't follow through with my plan."

 

[klunderbunker]

As for the "acting weird" thing, let's take a look at someone like....oh I don't know. Me.

I rarely leave my house, I have what can only be described as an obsession with wrestling, I have few friends, I rarely leave my house, and I say some odd things that even Becca looks at me weird for.

Now post people would call me strange or kind of weird or whatever, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go on a killing spree. You could say that about anyone and if you do, you're going to be so paranoid looking for signs and then convince yourself that they're there that you can't have a minute's peace.

 

[LoudClearVoice]

Did you guys see there's an employee from the movie theater (he was not shot but his friend was shot and killed) that is suing the theater, the shooter's doctors, and WARNER BROTHERS?

I actually think he does have a case against the movie theater and possibly even the doctors, but Warner Bros? Come on! He's going to try to argue that the shooter claimed to be the Joker but he didn't dress up like the Joker according to the reports and had planned the attack long before the 3rd movie came out so he couldn't have been emulating anything from the movie.
The stupid thing is that WB will probably pay him something to avoid a PR mess. Some attorney gave him good advice (get while the getting is good) but it's really unfortunate when people who aren't even victims, cash in on something like this.

 

[LoudClearVoice]

As for the "acting weird" thing, let's take a look at someone like....oh I don't know. Me.

I rarely leave my house, I have what can only be described as an obsession with wrestling, I have few friends, I rarely leave my house, and I say some odd things that even Becca looks at me weird for.

Now post people would call me strange or kind of weird or whatever, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go on a killing spree. You could say that about anyone and if you do, you're going to be so paranoid looking for signs and then convince yourself that they're there that you can't have a minute's peace.

He had a voicemail greeting that was described as "bizarre and psychotic." He had a profile on adultfriendfinder.com in which he asked women if they'd visit him in prison (this was set up long before the crimes occurred). Yeah, sounds perfectly fine to me. Nothing to be alarmed about.

 

[klunderbunker]

He had a voicemail greeting that was described as "bizarre and psychotic." He had a profile on adultfriendfinder.com in which he asked women if they'd visit him in prison (this was set up long before the crimes occurred). Yeah, sounds perfectly fine to me. Nothing to be alarmed about.

I've been called bizarre and psychotic far more than once. I was read my rights once in 9th grade and thought I was going to go to jail. Would that make me a suspect in this?

My point it this: people are strange creatures. There's no straight definition of normal and almost everyone has signs of being insane at times. Anyone can say these things after the fact, but how many people do you think do strange things and never touch a weapon at all?

See my point?

 

[LoudClearVoice]

As for the "acting weird" thing, let's take a look at someone like....oh I don't know. Me.

I rarely leave my house, I have what can only be described as an obsession with wrestling, I have few friends, I rarely leave my house, and I say some odd things that even Becca looks at me weird for.

Now post people would call me strange or kind of weird or whatever, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go on a killing spree. You could say that about anyone and if you do, you're going to be so paranoid looking for signs and then convince yourself that they're there that you can't have a minute's peace.

Sure, it's easy to look at this after the fact, which is what i'm doing but if people had been on to his strange behavior (weird voicemail, buying lots of guns, buying explosives and parts to make explosives, cryptic postings on the internet), maybe this incident could have been prevented. Same goes for Columbine and the Va Tech shootings. There are almost always clues (again, after the fact) that make people go "duh, how did we not see this?" In my opinion, detecting these warning or suspicious signs would do a better job of stopping or preventing the individual crimes than simply making guns illegal.

 

[smizzy]

Again, will there be some people with guns still? Absolutely. But there will be FAR less incidences of gun crime against innocent people. And as I've said many times in other places, if gun sales were outlawed, there would be 12 people still alive in Colorado. It's really that simple.

Let me ask you this, Sly. As we are both from the Show-Me State, we can attest that when October comes rolling around, with its freezing or blazing temperatures that are uncommon for the season, typical Missouri weather you know, you start seeing the Ford Rangers, the campers, the big ol duramaxes, parked on the side of the county roads. They got their 12-packs sitting on th tailgate, their orange safety vests slung across the frame of the bed, and of course, they got their prized buck, barely visable, but lifeless laying there in the bed. The picture I'm painting is..hunters.

-Do you believe the tradition that's been around since man should end?
-Should certain hunters have the rights to obtain a gun for this one purpose?
-Can hunting take place without the gun, only allowing bows? Or should bows be made illegal as well?

 

[klunderbunker]

Sure, it's easy to look at this after the fact, which is what i'm doing but if people had been on to his strange behavior (weird voicemail, buying lots of guns, buying explosives and parts to make explosives, cryptic postings on the internet), maybe this incident could have been prevented. Same goes for Columbine and the Va Tech shootings. There are almost always clues (again, after the fact) that make people go "duh, how did we not see this?" In my opinion, detecting these warning or suspicious signs would do a better job of stopping or preventing the individual crimes than simply making guns illegal.

KB: "Hey buddy what are you up to?"

Holmes: "Not much. Buying another thousand rounds of ammunition and maybe a rifle later."

Also, how exactly do you know who someone is when they post something on the internet? I say all these things about who I am, where I live and all this stuff, but you have no way of knowing who I am and where I live. So how can you keep track with signs that I give?

The idea that you have is fine in theory, but there's almost zero practicality to it.

 

[LoudClearVoice]

I've been called bizarre and psychotic far more than once. I was read my rights once in 9th grade and thought I was going to go to jail. Would that make me a suspect in this?

My point it this: people are strange creatures. There's no straight definition of normal and almost everyone has signs of being insane at times. Anyone can say these things after the fact, but how many people do you think do strange things and never touch a weapon at all?

See my point?

yes I agree. There's no black and white test to determine if someone is a sicko that's going to shoot up a place. I get that. However, more often than not, when incidents like this occur, the shooter seems to have exhibited "strange" or "suspicious" behavior. The problem is, it's easy to look back after it happens and point at certain things rather than to figure it out beforehand.

 

[Loveless]

yes I agree. There's no black and white test to determine if someone is a sicko that's going to shoot up a place. I get that. However, more often than not, when incidents like this occur, the shooter seems to have exhibited "strange" or "suspicious" behavior. The problem is, it's easy to look back after it happens and point at certain things rather than to figure it out beforehand.

Mental illness affects at least 1 in 5 Americans at some point in their life. About 60mil. Good luck policing them all.
Getting away from mental health anyway, it's not just the mentally ill that are a threat. It's anyone who ever lost their temper of felt threatened, so basically everyone. When that happens, these people should not have access to deadly weapons.

25,000 murders of suicides a year. Reduce the access, the number goes down and I'll tell you exactly why. It's because most people are actually good, law-abiding people who will have calmed down by the time they'd bought a forearm, they don't want to have to ask around for a weapon, they don't want anything to do with criminals, they don't want to get arrested but mostly because if you took the shops away, the wouldn't have a clue where to get these weapons.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

I agree. The point is that it makes them MUCH less likely and MUCH more difficult to pull off. (The rest of my post is not directed towards you, just speaking in general)

Let's hypothetically say that no one in the United States owns a firearm. Will there be people who circumvent the law and obtain guns illegally? Yes, no rational person will dispute that. But the number of people who can actually do such a thing is VERY small, and limited to large criminal organizations with the right connections. This idea that every American will be a sitting duck to the gun-toting marauders that will show up on every street corner is silly. The fact is there will be FEWER gun-toting marauders, because most people won't be able to get a firearm.

The bans in Chicago and D.C. didn't work, but why would they? If I live in Chicago, I can drive 30 minutes to an hour to another town, buy my weapon and drive back. A city-wide ban on guns COULD prevent gun crime, but it's easy to see why it didn't/wouldn't. The only way this works is if it is a NATIONAL ban.

Again, will there be some people with guns still? Absolutely. But there will be FAR less incidences of gun crime against innocent people. And as I've said many times in other places, if gun sales were outlawed, there would be 12 people still alive in Colorado. It's really that simple.

And the same could be said in reverse, were the nation to take on a better, more educated and pro-active stance on gun ownership the way Switzerland does.

I covered this earlier in the thread. Nearly every man, woman and child (yes, child) in Switzerland owns a firearm, yet the nation has gun-related violence statistics so low it doesn't even keep record of them!

I stand by my statements regardless — increase regulation and make it more difficult to actually OBTAIN a weapon and you'll see a dramatic drop in gun-related violence (at least legally).

 

[Larry]

Here's a short story from my personal life that relates to the topic.

I had a fried named Robbie. Robbie had a girlfriend. They were together for 7 years. I and a lot of other folks had known Robbie for most of his life, and obviously knew his girlfriend rather well too. Robbie and his girlfriend Carrie had a house together, but eventually due to issue between them, Carrie and Robbie's relationship was falling apart. They stayed together for a while because they had this house together and a shared responsibility in it as a result, but their relationship was effectively ended.

Robbie took it pretty hard, and the saying "You don't know what you've got until it's gone" took on a whole new meaning for him. He slept next to her every night in misery as he realized he ruined their relationship by not treating her better, and now here she was next to him and she didn't care whether he was there or gone. The love they once shared had fled, and he was largely responsible for it. It ate him up inside as he discovered that he really did love her all along but that stresses in his life ended up blinding him to the fact until it was too late.

Carrie eventually left him for good, moving in with a friend. During this time Robbie did his best to convince her to take him back, convince her to give him another chance, and to try and reconcile the past to once again share the relationship they enjoyed for a period of time. Carrie had moved on though, after Robbies rejections prior to this she was hurt and decided to try and move on without him. Robbie didn't want that to happen, and he anguish grew and grew. He started following her to places, and love turned into obsession. Convinced that he would get her back somehow he even tried to get other people to go to places he knew she was going and try to hook up with her to see if she would, or if she might still be thinking of him and reject the persons advances as a result. My brother was one of the people he had do this unbeknownst to me until well after the fact. He tried over and over to do anything just to see her, and to know what she was up to. He longed for her, and took every opportunity he could to try and be around her. Eventually though, Carrie became scared by Robbies persistence and put a restraining order against him. Of course this took some time for the papers to be processed, and for him to be served, but she went ahead with these actions as Robbie seemed to be dangerously obsessed and hopelessly convinced that he could fix this.

After Robbie was served his papers, he continued to stalk Carrie. He drove past her house, past her work, he'd try to call her, and he tried to spy on her essentially and continued to hire people to go try and hook up with her at bars to see if she was moving on and trying to hook up with someone else in hopes that she wasn't and he could work things out. With all these failures and loneliness mounting and playing on his mind and his emotions, eventually his longing, his pain, his anguish, and his love, turned into something else. Resentment, anger, and these emotions set him on a path of vengeance towards her for putting him in this lonely personal hell despite his efforts.

One of my friends was talking to him on the phone one day and Robbie told him he was watching Carrie through the scope of a high powered rifle. A couple weeks after that, Robbie waited for her to get back to the friends house she was staying at and shot Carrie to death, shot a friend of hers who was driving the car, then went home and shot himself in the head committing suicide. No one knew where he got the gun, and had he not had that gun it's possible he and Carrie would still be alive. I also had a friend about 2 years prior to that who shot himself in the head after his wife told him she was leaving him and taking their kids with her. If he hadn't had that gun, maybe he would have tried something else, but he might have survived that something else. Either way, these people who were both close to me died at their own hands, at the power of a gun. If they were simply outlawed they wouldn't have been able to get them in the first place.

 

[harrythem]

There's lots of talk about the guns, and it is a terrible tragedy, but I'm going to ask a completely different question -

His youngest victim was 9 and there was a baby in the cinema. It was a midnight screening of a 12a film (pg13 in America). What on every level of parenting, are kids that young doing in a cinema? Are those parents so irresponsible to do that? My son's only 2 but he's lucky if he stays up past 8pm at a party, let alone taking him to a midnight showing of a "dark" film. Some seriously irresponsible parenting, especially from the cunt that put the 3 month old on the floor, left the baby there and escaped over a balcony (and drove away), leaving the mum who'd been shot to get the baby (and her 4 year old daughter!!!) and escape (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rs-lost-baby-floor-panic-massacre-cinema.html for a link). Any chance some American could call social services and report that twat?

 

[Slyfox696]

Drugs are illegal. Why are there still hundreds of thousands of people that are addicted to drugs and dying from drug use every year? If they're illegal that means people can't get them, right?

I'm sorry, was that your evidence that he would have gotten the gun on the black market? If so, I'm afraid I missed where you actually showed your proof.

Alcohol was illegal in the US during prohibition, yet people still drank, and in fact, gangsters and bootleggers made it almost easier and cheaper to get alcohol than before it was legal but regulated.

Have you read anything I posted in this thread? I've already agreed there would be SOME people who would still own guns, but MOST people wouldn't.

I think it's ignorant to think that if it were illegal for him to buy guns, he wouldn't have committed the crime.

And I think it's ignorant to say "well, he PROBABLY would have done it anyways", and ignore the bigger issue which is that he did by purchasing weapons LEGALLY. Focus on what's important, not your own unprovable conjectures.

Here's a guy planning mass murder but suddenly he's going to say "well since I can't legally buy any of these weapons, I guess I won't follow through with my plan."

Again, as I've said, it would make it much more difficult to do so.

Sure, it's easy to look at this after the fact, which is what i'm doing but if people had been on to his strange behavior (weird voicemail, buying lots of guns, buying explosives and parts to make explosives, cryptic postings on the internet), maybe this incident could have been prevented. Same goes for Columbine and the Va Tech shootings. There are almost always clues (again, after the fact) that make people go "duh, how did we not see this?" In my opinion, detecting these warning or suspicious signs would do a better job of stopping or preventing the individual crimes than simply making guns illegal.

Yes, you're right. Everyone going around visiting everyone else's adult profiles, investigating gun purchases, investigating cyptic postings on the Internet, listening to everyone's voicemail...that's a MUCH better way to stop gun violence than banning the selling of guns. And it's not at ALL invasive of a citizen's privacy.

Let me ask you this, Sly. As we are both from the Show-Me State, we can attest that when October comes rolling around, with its freezing or blazing temperatures that are uncommon for the season, typical Missouri weather you know, you start seeing the Ford Rangers, the campers, the big ol duramaxes, parked on the side of the county roads. They got their 12-packs sitting on th tailgate, their orange safety vests slung across the frame of the bed, and of course, they got their prized buck, barely visable, but lifeless laying there in the bed. The picture I'm painting is..hunters.

-Do you believe the tradition that's been around since man should end?
-Should certain hunters have the rights to obtain a gun for this one purpose?
-Can hunting take place without the gun, only allowing bows? Or should bows be made illegal as well?

Believe me, I'm all too well of hunters, I live in the SE portion of Missouri. I guess the question we have to ask is "Is killing animals for fun and trophies really more important than protecting the lives of innocents, particularly innocent children?".

If the answer to that question is yes, then I would suggest society re-examine its values. If you want to hunt, take a spear. Hell, I'd probably be okay with bow hunting.

And the same could be said in reverse, were the nation to take on a better, more educated and pro-active stance on gun ownership the way Switzerland does.

Impossible to do in America, given the differences in our government. Our government cannot FORCE people into military training as Switzerland does. Besides that, given the state of our current financial situation, do you really think the government has the financial capability to even begin such a program of education?

I stand by my statements regardless — increase regulation and make it more difficult to actually OBTAIN a weapon and you'll see a dramatic drop in gun-related violence (at least legally).

We agree. The difference is I'm taking it one step further than you. I guess my question is if you agree making it difficult to obtain a gun decreases gun related violence, why not just make them illegal and be done with it?

There's lots of talk about the guns, and it is a terrible tragedy, but I'm going to ask a completely different question -

His youngest victim was 9 and there was a baby in the cinema. It was a midnight screening of a 12a film (pg13 in America). What on every level of parenting, are kids that young doing in a cinema? Are those parents so irresponsible to do that? My son's only 2 but he's lucky if he stays up past 8pm at a party, let alone taking him to a midnight showing of a "dark" film. Some seriously irresponsible parenting, especially from the cunt that put the 3 month old on the floor, left the baby there and escaped over a balcony (and drove away), leaving the mum who'd been shot to get the baby (and her 4 year old daughter!!!) and escape (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rs-lost-baby-floor-panic-massacre-cinema.html for a link). Any chance some American could call social services and report that twat?

While it sounds easy to criticize from your computer chair, and while we would all like to think we would not react in the same way, the fact is it's hard to say what we would do in a crisis such as that. When you are in such a state of fear, your body reacts with insane amounts of adrenaline and the "fight or flight" response kicks in. It's hard to know what he was thinking, if he was even consciously thinking at all.

I would sincerely hope that if such a tragedy were to ever happen to me I would not react in the same way, but until you're actually in the moment, you never know. There are plenty of stories of well-trained soldiers who volunteered to serve their country who shit themselves the moment combat started. It's not because they weren't brave, it's just because they froze in a moment of crisis.

 

[hatehabsforever]

Frankly, I cannot believe that this point is even being debated. Fewer guns has to mean fewer gun related deaths and lesser gun related violence. Make them illegal, or at the very least, extremely more restricted in terms of who can purchase them and under what conditions, and events like the TDKR tragedy become far less commonplace.

Some of the analogies being drawn are simply not valid. Prohibition curtailed alcohol, yet people back then still used it illegally, but there's no doubt about it, fewer people did than would have if it had remained legal throughout the entire time.

Illicit drugs are illegal, yet some people still use them anyway. But let's face it, fewer people use cocaine or oxycontin or whatever than there would be if you could walk into a convenience store or drug store and purchase them legally. Making drug use illegal results in less drug use than if it was legal. Does it eliminate drug use, of course not, no measures could achieve this result. Likewise, you'll never eliminate gun activity amongst criminals with criminal intent, but by making it illegal, the numbers would be lower, they simply have to be.

That crazy dude was able to purchase legal weapons and go use them to commit this senseless tragedy. It's not too big a stretch of the imagination to suggest that if his ability to purchase weapons was eliminated, he wouldn't have had the means to do it. Sure, he might have sought them out illegally. He might have tried the black market. He might have done it anyway. But it's considerably less likely that he would have.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

We agree. The difference is I'm taking it one step further than you. I guess my question is if you agree making it difficult to obtain a gun decreases gun related violence, why not just make them illegal and be done with it?

Because I still believe in the right to bear arms. I believe in the power of the firearm and the value it brings to the concept of leveling the playing field.

You'll never disarm the world, so I see no value or safety in disarming the US, as all it does is leave us utterly vulnerable to both the rest of the world as well as one another, since folks could still purchase weapons illegally to use on the peoples of a nation who don't have the ability to defend themselves.

I'm fully behind stricter regulations, but I'm not at all OK with the idea of a nation-wide ban.

 

[Wald]

If you think the banning of weapons will stop gun-related homicides, accidents, etc. you're dead wrong.

Want proof of that? See Prohibition. When you want to curb the use of something, you don't ban it — you REGULATE it. Even parents know that the more you tell a child he/she CAN'T have/do something, the more he/she will want to.

Nonsense. I come from a country with a very recent violent past (Ireland), but the thought of civilians being able to carry handguns or have assault rifles in their house fills me and everyone I know with terror.

It would have been very easy for my country to free up gun laws in the years following our independence, but sense prevailed and our politicians didn't think putting a weapon of such power in everyone's hands was justified.

Does it mean we don't have criminals? No it doesn't.
Does it mean we're less safe from criminals? No, it also doesn't.

But I'm quite happy to live in a country where only the army, the police and the criminals they're trying to catch carry guns.

What I do know is that whenever someone is shot in this country, even if it's a gang killing, it's a massive deal and people are rightly horrified. Thankfully that doesn't happen much, checking Wikipedia stats of gun related deaths per capita it happens to be 10% of America's rate

Ireland: 1.21 per 100,000
America: 10.27 per 100,000

So taking into account our very recent violent past (to say that we aren't a traditionally pacifist nation) I don't see how those figures could be argued