US cinema shooting Options

[Tiuri]

It's also worth pointing out that time and again, leading psychologists say that the cycle of gun massacres is perpetuated by the media turning the gun men into "celebrities" over night,

Let's not forget the danger of playing violent games and watching violent movies. I'm sure this guy will also be found guilty of those two 'crimes'

[Parsifal]

What I don't understand is with Congress and legislatures passing liberal gun ownership laws allowing the carrying of a loaded concealed weapon in public places e.g. a church, university campus, kindergarten, etc. and the Supreme Court upholding these laws, why isn't it legal to carry a loaded concealed weapon onto the floor of the Senate or the House of Representatives or up in the visitor's galleries? And into the Supreme Court too! Strange.

This post has been edited by Parsifal: Jul 21 2012, 19:04

[phallus]

You're not being serious, surely!

What we don't have is the ability to buy 6,000 rounds of ammunition legally over the internet, as this person is alleged to have done. Where does the law intervene? Is it legal to buy mortars and grenades as a private citizen in the US? What about bombs and bomb-making equipment?

Whilst there is no doubt that these things will happen regardless, there is equally a correlation between ease of access and frequency of occurrence. The USA remains the world leader in massacres of private individuals by private individuals.

I never heard of Israeli on Israeli violence. Have I missed something?

I think the debate about the high power of weapons available, ease of access to rounds is one of scale. Agreed - he would have found it difficult to kill 14 and wound 50 with a German WW2 handgun. But then again is scale really an issue? Would it been less of a tragedy if 2 people were killed and 4 wounded?

I guess my main point is that guns don't kill people, people kill people. If you ban people from having sharp scissors and knives, they'd bludgeon each other to death with bits of wood.

This post has been edited by phallus: Jul 22 2012, 08:44

[Nosferatu]

I guess my main point is that guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Absolute bullshit! How many people would have died the other day if he didn't have guns? Guns absolutely do kill people, its what they were invented for and frankly the idea that if you make them at least hard to get hold of (i.e. illegal), then a lot less people will die because of them, really isn't rocket science.

[phallus]

You're missing my point. People invented guns to kill other people. If you stop them having guns they'll use something else.

This guy obviously has a screw loose - like most of our homegrown nutters. Do you really think he would have thought "I'm going to kill a shit load of people today. But oh no! It's really difficult to get hold of guns . Oh, well. I'll make fairy cakes instead."

That's bullshit.

[ladsnet]

Yes but the point is.. realistically... can you walk into a cinema and quickly kill 12 people with a knife or piece of wood?

Guns should be (ARE over here) banned because of the ease of killing. Especially if you can just walk into a pawn shop and buy an assault rifle.
Sorry.. thats just insane.

Have you seen the people who go into Cash Converters?
I wouldn't give them a tin-opener never mind an AK47



Some people will always go hatstand and want to kill everyone. The point is to make it more difficult for that to happen.

[phallus]

Meh.. I just think it's simplistic to think banning guns stops homicidal rampages.

Since the ban on guns here, we had the school shooting in Scotland, the rampage in Cumbria (with licensed weapons!) and the tube bombing with improvised explosives..


ETA: It really isn't easy to kill with a gun. You have to be prepared to take someone's life. Not many people are prepared to do that - in spite of what the media/hollywood will have you believe.

This post has been edited by phallus: Jul 22 2012, 11:18

[ladsnet]

Do you mean Dunblane?
Didn't that cause the handgun ban?


You just seem to be ignoring what people are saying.

I just think it's simplistic to think banning guns stops homicidal rampages

It doesn't.
It REDUCES their likelihood.


The ban on heroin doesn't stop there being smackheads.
It just reduces the numbers of them.

[stevo]

I never heard of Israeli on Israeli violence. Have I missed something?

Yes, the rest of the premises of your argument. You never mentioned 'Israeli on Israeli'. I'm not sure what difference it makes what nationality the victims are, and I'm guessing your average gunman doesn't care. However random fanatics in Israel have certainly opened fire on civilians.

[phallus]

I thought the gun ban came in after the Michael Ryan shootings? I seem to remember calls for the gun laws to be tightened after Dunblane. I might be wrong though.

I'm not ignoring, I just have a different viewpoint.

Banning guns doesn't work. You have to work on the reasons people "go postal" in the first place.


ETA: The parallels I was drawing between the US and Israel is that both societies make weaponry freely available to their citizens. Yet homicide rates are much lower in Israel. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...l_homicide_rate. Not sure how many countries have gun bans, but you'd think the UK would be bottom of this table, no? If gun bans had any effect on homicide rates.

This post has been edited by phallus: Jul 22 2012, 11:48

[stretchmonkey]

Do you mean Dunblane?
Didn't that cause the handgun ban?


You just seem to be ignoring what people are saying.

I just think it's simplistic to think banning guns stops homicidal rampages

It doesn't.
It REDUCES their likelihood.


The ban on heroin doesn't stop there being smackheads.
It just reduces the numbers of them.

You could argue that the banning of heroin has actually increased the numbers of smackheads hugely..but that's another debate!
I saw an interesting article by a behaviourologist who said that humans are prone to sudden rages and prehistorically that just meant a few punches thrown or a bit of gouging before it dissipated and we patched up our differences. Not too much damage done. Once weapons (and particularly guns) came about those same rages lead almost always to death. We havn't yet evolved to use guns sensibly.
Incidentally, there are strict gun laws in Norway.....

[Roger Mellie]

Let's not forget the danger of playing violent games and watching violent movies

People who have a predisposition to violence, will be drawn to those games and films as they have that aggression already within them; as my pscyhologist colleagues will tell you, those games and movies don't make people violent (they can't make you anything). It's just a specious argument made by authoritarians, who wish to grab more power and control over you, by absolving us of self-determination and responsiblity. After all plenty of people watch violent films, but those films don't turn them into belligerent psychopaths; anymore than watching soaps makes a serial adulterer, or watching comedy makes you hilarious.

It's interesting to note that Switzerland has very relaxed gun laws, indeed gun ownership is postively encouraged-- yet we don't hear of such shootings there. Why the difference between the Swiss and the USA I wonder?

This post has been edited by Roger Mellie: Jul 22 2012, 16:08

[Parsifal]

I still think that guns should be allowed in the visitors' gallery of the House of Representatives. For self-defense of course.

[ladsnet]

It's interesting to note that Switzerland has very relaxed gun laws, indeed gun ownership is postively encouraged-- yet we don't hear of such shootings there. Why the difference between the Swiss and the USA I wonder?

Soothing cuckoo clocks

[stevo]

It's interesting to note that Switzerland has very relaxed gun laws, indeed gun ownership is postively encouraged-- yet we don't hear of such shootings there. Why the difference between the Swiss and the USA I wonder?

Not as relaxed as you're implying. Whilst members of the armed forces store weaponry at their homes,. private citizens are not permitted to own automatic weapons without a special licence.

Bear in mind also that we're talking about a country with a population of what, 6.5 million or thereabouts? Slightly larger than the population of Massachusetts. I don't think we're in comparable territory, even before we look at things like nationalism and poverty figures, two often-cited sources of gun crime.

[Roger Mellie]

Bear in mind also that we're talking about a country with a population of what, 6.5 million or thereabouts? Slightly larger than the population of Massachusetts. I don't think we're in comparable territory, even before we look at things like nationalism and poverty figures, two often-cited sources of gun crime.

Fair point. While we're at, let's remember the gun laws vary from state to state in the USA. A while since I've read up on this, but Pennsylvania requires background checks for handgun buyers, and requires gun dealers to obtain a state licence, if I recall. In Vermont gun dealers are required to keep a record of all handgun sales-- and it is illegal to carry a gun on school property or in a courthouse.

In contrast in Arizona you need to be 21, and have a permit to carry a concealed weapon; but if it is not considered to be a weapon that needs to be concealed, you are able to openly carry a weapon without a permit if you are over the age of 18, in some cases. And because of the law, you can take it almost anywhere. This means libraries, coffee shops, sports bars, playgrounds, you name it.




This post has been edited by Roger Mellie: Jul 22 2012, 21:02

[phallus]

Is there any evidence that these different laws have any impact on gun crime or homicide rates?

I only ask as handguns were banned in the UK in 1997. After that, gun crime rose sharply and, although it has steadily fallen, is still higher than it was before the "ban".

[Nosferatu]

Is there any evidence that these different laws have any impact on gun crime or homicide rates?

I only ask as handguns were banned in the UK in 1997. After that, gun crime rose sharply and, although it has steadily fallen, is still higher than it was before the "ban".

The thing you have to remember there though is that since guns are more or less illegal here in the UK, then virtually all incidents of gun violence are a crime, whereas in places like the US where guns are legal not all shootings are recorded as crimes (in fact far from it), therefore you're not getting an accurate comparison between similar countries (in terms of culture). To be able to judge you'd need to compare the UK gun crime statistics against all instances of people getting shot in the US, whether legal or not.

[PUllio]

To me it seems very sensible to control access to weapons. Even if it won't stop spree killings completely or even gangs owning guns, at least it might reduce the number of cases where a 3 year old kid accidentally shoots his parents.

Me, I would go for a strict ban. I am told that has been done in Japan successfully. Anyone know more about this?

[ladsnet]

Well since the shootings, applications for guns have risen over 40% in Arizona

So it seems we are wrong.
The answer to horrific gun crime.. is for everyone to buy more guns.