10 shot dead at Batman showing in Denver

Helix

Tony EH wrote: »

yeh, but he didn't, did he? So, your point is a bit silly too.

Again, the simple fact remains that this type of weaponry/gear should not be available to just anyone and as long as it is, then America better get used to this type of incident.

it's in their constitution. yes, that constitution was drafted a long time ago, but it's in there, and that's that. if you're an american citizen you SHOULD be able to get those weapons, by law and by constitution. yes it's ridiculous, but that's their constitution at the end of the day - good luck getting them to change it

Kirby

A guns only purpose is to kill. Thats what it was designed for and thats it's function. So unless you want to kill somebody, you have no use for one. Joe citizen has no use for a gun in his everyday life and therefore he should not have access to one.

Laws should change with the times. It made sense in the era that the constitution was drafted to allow every citizen to own a gun. But that simply doesn't make sense anymore and allowing a person to walk into a store and buy a gun like he would buy milk is simply ridiculous.

Crazy people will always do crazy things and try and kill people. That won't change. But they should not be given access to weapons that destructive. Allowing every tom, dick and harry to go buy a rifle is just asking for trouble.

MadsL

Kirby wrote: »

A guns only purpose is to kill. Thats what it was designed for and thats it's function. So unless you want to kill somebody, you have no use for one. Joe citizen has no use for a gun in his everyday life and therefore he should not have access to one. .

I take it you have never eaten game? Nor lived on a farm. Nor lived in remote area with the strong possibility of meeting bears, mountain lions and snakes. Many "Joe citizens" in the US have guns for exactly these purposes. Gunowners in the US have them for a tool and/or home defence. Trust me, the very last thing a gunowner wishes for is to have to use it in their own home.

Kirby

Okay, firstly a gun is not a "tool". A hammer is a tool. A spanner is a tool. A gun is a device used for killing. Therefore it is a weapon, not a tool.

And I never said nobody should have a gun. Which is why i said "Joe citizen" and not everybody. Some people should be given access to guns. The army, the police, a farmer of livestock. These people have use for a gun.

A lad who likes to hunt game is participating in a sport or a pastime. It's barbaric but if he chooses to do so, go for it. However he can do it with traps. He does not need a gun. He wants one because he likes it. We shouldn't make things legal just because people like it.

A gun for home defense is grand in theory but we don't live in theory. What actually happens is that the gun is used to kill somebody in an argument. Or kill a spouse in a fit of rage. Or kill a child who accidentally picks it up. Or co-opted by the invader himself and used to kill the home owner. Or stolen by a thug. These are the results of average joe's having access to guns in reality.

And because of this, they should be made unavailable to the general public. For every responsible gun owner, there are ten morons who wind up killing people. These same morons can just as easily kill somebody with their car, but a car's function is transport so all we can do about that is make sure they know how to drive before we let them near one. A guns function is killing and there is no test for that.

It's simply a killing machine that should only be in the hands of people who occasionally need to kill. If somebody feels the need to protect their home, install an alarm. Buy a dog. Buy a tazer. Guns are not the answer.

Wibbs

Kirby wrote: »

A lad who likes to hunt game is participating in a sport or a pastime. It's barbaric but if he chooses to do so, go for it. However he can do it with traps. He does not need a gun. He wants one because he likes it. We shouldn't make things legal just because people like it.

You speak of barbaric and then suggest the use of traps? Daft argument TBH.

For every responsible gun owner, there are ten morons who wind up killing people.

Eh no, there are not. There are literally millions of privately held guns and gun owners in the US. Your stats are emotive nonsense.

Kirby

Wibbs wrote: »

You speak of barbaric and then suggest the use of traps? Daft argument TBH.
.

I think you are confusing daft and logic. I'll lay it out for you.

I don't believe in killing animals for sport. Using any method. But I also believe the world doesn't cater to my whim. If somebody wants to do it, I believe they should be aloud to. Just because I don't like it, shouldn't stop them from doing it. But thats not a reason to own a gun. There are other ways for them to kill said animals without using a gun. Therefore the argument that you need a gun to hunt game is a poor one. Which was the point I made.

Wibbs wrote: »

There are literally millions of privately held guns and gun owners in the US. Your stats are emotive nonsense.

What stats? I didn't list any stats. I shouldn't need a stat to tell you what you already know. Common sense. But I'm sure if you needed them you could find them. For example if you were a stat man, you could compare the number of people killed in "home invasions" to the amount of people murdered with a gun or accidental deaths due to guns in a year. Any year. I'm sure it would illustrate the fact that having a gun as means of protecting a home is inefficient at best and downright foolhardy and dangerous at worst.

MadsL

Your absolute blind ignorance of the circumstances for which a gun here in the US is used is breathtaking. I'm going to try and educate you. I doubt I'll be successful but here we go.

Kirby wrote: »

Okay, firstly a gun is not a "tool". A hammer is a tool. A spanner is a tool. A gun is a device used for killing. Therefore it is a weapon, not a tool.

A hammer can be a tool or weapon. If a nail is under my hammer it is a tool, if your head is under it it is a weapon. If I am pointing a gun at you it is a weapon, if I am using it to kill an aggressive snake in my backyard it is a tool.

And I never said nobody should have a gun. Which is why i said "Joe citizen" and not everybody. Some people should be given access to guns. The army, the police, a farmer of livestock. These people have use for a gun.

I'll be sure and post a notice for the rattlers in my vicinity to take heed, since I'm not a farmer I guess I'l get bit. Equally no walks or camping for me in bear country for me.

A lad who likes to hunt game is participating in a sport or a pastime. It's barbaric but if he chooses to do so, go for it. However he can do it with traps.

Hmm, my local outfitters will have fun when I go in and ask for a deer trap. Rolling on the floor laughing type of fun.

He does not need a gun. He wants one because he likes it. We shouldn't make things legal just because people like it.

I think the deer prefer being shot, trapping them and beating them to death with shoes seems a little, what was that word? oh yes barbaric.

A gun for home defense is grand in theory but we don't live in theory. What actually happens is that the gun is used to kill somebody in an argument. Or kill a spouse in a fit of rage. Or kill a child who accidentally picks it up. Or co-opted by the invader himself and used to kill the home owner. Or stolen by a thug. These are the results of average joe's having access to guns in reality.

Actually, those are the results of stupidity and carelessness. Do you have knives on your kitchen counter? Are they within reach without locks? Do you have to load them? Disengage a safety? Aim them? Pull a trigger?

Some 2 (yes, 2) illegal shootings are made each year by Concealed Carry permit holders - posted the source for this further up this thread. Most people illegally killed by guns are killed by illegally held guns.

And because of this, they should be made unavailable to the general public. For every responsible gun owner, there are ten morons who wind up killing people.

Actually there are very few morons who go on a rampage each year. If ten morons for every gun owner went on a rampage this would be in the news daily. There were more rampages (spree killings) in Asia and Oceania than in the Americas.

These same morons can just as easily kill somebody with their car, but a car's function is transport

Morons are surprisingly adept at finding ways to kill people, sometimes they fill that car with explosives and detonate it. More often they get pissed and drive them at people. Should we restrict cars to people who 'need' them?

so all we can do about that is make sure they know how to drive before we let them near one.

No, we police them. Same as with gun owners. Same as anybody. We have laws here, some may have guns but it is no longer the Wild West. There are laws

A guns function is killing and there is no test for that.

Actually, there is a test before you can carry a concealed weapon, scroll back you might learn something.

It's simply a killing machine that should only be in the hands of people who occasionally need to kill.

Pity the Irish Olympic shooters then. Sorry, pack up, go home.

If somebody feels the need to protect their home, install an alarm. Buy a dog. Buy a tazer. Guns are not the answer.

How do you think an alarm, a tazer, or a dopy dog would have helped in these situations? Incidentally tazers do kill people and 80% of gunshot wounds are non-fatal.

http://www.examiner.com/article/14-year-old-phoenix-boy-shoots-armed-intruder-while-babysitting-siblings

http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman-shoots-kills-intruder911-operators-shoot/story?id=15285605#.UAz7XLTZA7I
Spot the dog?

Wibbs

Kirby wrote: »

I don't believe in killing animals for sport. Using any method. But I also believe the world doesn't cater to my whim. If somebody wants to do it, I believe they should be aloud to. Just because I don't like it, shouldn't stop them from doing it. But thats not a reason to own a gun. There are other ways for them to kill said animals without using a gun. Therefore the argument that you need a gun to hunt game is a poor one. Which was the point I made.

So in your "logic" you'd prefer see a much more barbaric and cruel method of hunting, because it would take guns out of the equation? I've come across this kind stuff from anti bloodsports types before. Logic is rarely part of it. BTW I don't hunt, so I'm not coming from that position.

What stats? I didn't list any stats. I shouldn't need a stat to tell you what you already know. Common sense.

You do realise that and I quote "For every responsible gun owner, there are ten morons who wind up killing people" is a stat and an eye swivellingly daft one at that? So for every gun owner in the US, ten gun owners kill people? I'm loving what passes for common sense in your argument.

MadsL

Kirby wrote: »

There are other ways for them to kill said animals without using a gun.

A. The deer meat is eaten.
B. What "other ways" - what on earth are you on about?

Kirby wrote: »

What stats? I didn't list any stats. I shouldn't need a stat to tell you what you already know. Common sense. But I'm sure if you needed them you could find them. For example if you were a stat man, you could compare the number of people killed in "home invasions" to the amount of people murdered with a gun or accidental deaths due to guns in a year. Any year. I'm sure it would illustrate the fact that having a gun as means of protecting a home is inefficient at best and downright foolhardy and dangerous at worst.

Show me the stats of people killed in "home invasions" with their own gun vs just killed in home invasions. Good luck with that.

What is your "efficient" means of protecting a home? Live next door to the police station??

Chuck Stone

K-9 wrote: »

I live close to a society that did heavily have guns and bombs as part of a society, a deeply divided one with many imperfections.

Much of the problem in the early days was that only one side had all the guns. An armed Nationalist population might have had more bargaining power and might not have suffered from as many pogroms.

Kirby

MadsL wrote: »

A hammer can be a tool or weapon. If a nail is under my hammer it is a tool, if your head is under it it is a weapon. If I am pointing a gun at you it is a weapon, if I am using it to kill an aggressive snake in my backyard it is a tool.

Incidentally tazers do kill people

A hammer is a tool. It's function is non violent. It can be used to kill, but so can a fork. But that is not a fork's function. It's used for eating. You can use just about anything to kill a person. But the item is doing something it wasn't intended for. When a person kills somebody with a gun, the gun is fulfulling its purpose. It is purely designed to kill. That's all it does.

And tazers can kill people, just like the fork or hammer. But it's function is to incapacitate. To disable. That's what makes it a much better option.

And regarding Madsl and his deer advice, I'm not an expert but I'm pretty sure there are other ways to kill deer without a rifle in your hand. There might be some cave paintings you could google for some advice if your ego can take being outsmarted by people who could only point and grunt.

Manic Moran

So unless you want to kill somebody, you have no use for one.

Oh, good. So I can keep my guns then. I want to be able to kill people or things, as the situation dictates. I don't expect that I will ever be in a situation (outside of the Army) that I will ever think it the appropriate course of action, but in the unlikely event that I need to respond with lethal force, there really is no substitute for a firearm. It's one of those things that you never need... until you need one then you really really wish you had one.

For the record, I just checked out the M-W definition of 'tool': "a handheld device that aids in accomplishing a task"
Yep, guns count.

NTM

Kirby

Maybe I'm crazy but I think living in a country whose citizens have no guns is alot safer than living in country where everyone has a gun. There are nine guns for every ten Americans in the country. Nothing about that strikes me as safe.

Suppose I'm fighting a losing battle trying to have this discussion with gun nuts and army heads. Oh well.

Kirby

Wibbs wrote: »

So in your "logic" you'd prefer see a much more barbaric and cruel method of hunting, because it would take guns out of the equation? .

No. I'd prefer to see nobody hunt. But thats a seperate issue for a seperate thread. The hunting issue as it pertains to guns is that the people who like to hunt game don't need a gun to do it. Therefore the argument that if guns are banned they can't hunt is a silly one.

fishy fishy

Bad Panda wrote: »

FFS. Based on a news report of a woman speaking to a reporter - which I've explained more than once. Quit making things up yourself.

awaiting your retraction.........

Wibbs

Kirby wrote: »

And regarding Madsl and his deer advice, I'm not an expert but I'm pretty sure there are other ways to kill deer without a rifle in your hand. There might be some cave paintings you could google for some advice if your ego can take being outsmarted by people who could only point and grunt.

Oh god... Ah well, must break out the atlatl and longbow then.

fishy fishy

Dave! wrote: »

It's confirmed by the hospital.

You done trolling now? Moron

awaiting your apology DAVE!!

:rolleyes:

Kirby

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh god... Ah well, must break out the atlatl and longbow then.

If he asks a condescending question, he will get a condescending answer

PhlegmyMoses

Manic Moran wrote: »

Oh, good. So I can keep my guns then. I want to be able to kill people or things, as the situation dictates. I don't expect that I will ever be in a situation (outside of the Army) that I will ever think it the appropriate course of action, but in the unlikely event that I need to respond with lethal force, there really is no substitute for a firearm. It's one of those things that you never need... until you need one then you really really wish you had one.

For the record, I just checked out the M-W definition of 'tool': "a handheld device that aids in accomplishing a task"
Yep, guns count.

NTM

This is crazy to me. I just don't get this line of thinking. The likelihood that I would need a gun in the kind of situation you are outlining is minimal, especially in Ireland, where very few people have guns. I would be more inclined to buy a hedge trimmer for a hedge I don't have. I will be more likely to have to trim a hedge in the future than be in a situation where I would need to use "deadly force".

Kirby

Stop using logic to destroy their justification for keeping their dangerous toys. It's not fair. If the Pro-gun side are crazy than us anti-gun crowd have to act crazy too. Logic is not aloud.

Reindeer

Kirby wrote: »

Maybe I'm crazy but I think living in a country whose citizens have no guns is alot safer than living in country where everyone has a gun. There are nine guns for every ten Americans in the country. Nothing about that strikes me as safe.

This begs the question - how do you remove all the guns in the US? Any law outright prohibiting guns will disarm law-abiding citizens for the several generations it would take for there to be a significant reduction in gun ownership, leaving them easy victims for criminals with guns during this time. How do you propose those criminals be disarmed? Removal of the 2nd amendment will not only panic right wing gun-owners, but likely MOST Americans as the 2nd amendment is seen as the measure by which the populace in the Sates controls the government, and is seen as the teeth in the Bill Of Rights(the first 10 amendments). It seems unlikely you would have 9 guns for every 10 Americans simply because a small minority are extremist gun owners. My father was a left wing Democrat and worked for the government, and he owned several firearms. I know exactly how he would have felt if you were to say to him only criminals and the government can own guns, and he had to turn his in.

Kirby

Removing the guns from the hands of both the criminal and citizens is a monumentally difficult task. It would likely take years of debate, countless different programs and initiatives and billions of dollars. But just because something is difficult, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

It's a moot point anyway. It won't happen. Any government who suggested as much would be lynched.

You need to kill it by degrees. Implement better gun control laws. Slowly but surely implement new laws over time. It couldn't be down overnight. Softly softly is the only way. It would take years....decades even.

Reindeer

Kirby wrote: »

A gun for home defense is grand in theory but we don't live in theory. What actually happens is that the gun is used to kill somebody in an argument. Or kill a spouse in a fit of rage. Or kill a child who accidentally picks it up. Or co-opted by the invader himself and used to kill the home owner. Or stolen by a thug. These are the results of average joe's having access to guns in reality.
.

I'm not sure you can argue that guns are ubiquitous and gun crime is out of control in the US and then turn around in the same breath and say arming oneself as a defense against the same crime is a pointless endeavour.

Kirby

I never said it was pointless. I said it was dangerous and foolhardy and there were much better options that don't involve countless deaths.

Ush1

America has so many guns because it's the most paranoid place on earth. Ironically then the paranoia becomes justified as the all the paranoid people make it extremely dangerous.

Reindeer

Kirby wrote: »

Removing the guns from the hands of both the criminal and citizens is a monumentally difficult task. It would likely take years of debate, countless different programs and initiatives and billions of dollars. But just because something is difficult, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

It's a moot point anyway. It won't happen. Any government who suggested as much would be lynched.

You need to kill it by degrees. Implement better gun control laws. Slowly but surely implement new laws over time. It couldn't be down overnight. Softly softly is the only way. It would take years....decades even.

America has been on this road since the National Firearms Act of 1934. This puts the gun control issue half-life at nearly 70 years or so...

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/guntime1.html

Kirby

I don't think they are though. For example, what strides have been made in gun control in the last ten years? Barely any. If anything I would say they have gone backwards.

For something like this to happen, the government have to be committed to it and I don't think they are. The senators just look to one-up the other party and the president just wants to be re-elected. Sure they will make noises especially when a tragedy like this happens.....but the gun laws rarely get better.

K-9

Nodin wrote: »

I fail to see how pointing out that comparisons between NI and the US are invalid can be read into a post that seems to equate legal gun ownership and sectarian/political violence.

Indeed.

"the side of"? I had no idea that firearms and weaponry had or have a "side". This thread is becoming more educational by the hour. I - as do a number of people around the world - believe that in certain circumstances violence is justified as a last resort.

Indeed. Seems odd you'd be posting in a thread about a massacre in a cinema, posting about violence as a last resort, but the logic in this thread is getting increasingly bizarre,

Nodin

K-9 wrote: »

Indeed.




Indeed. Seems odd you'd be posting in a thread about a massacre in a cinema, posting about violence as a last resort, but the logic in this thread is getting increasingly bizarre,

The most bizarre thing in this thread so far has been someone using it to do a bit of Shinner bashing, and I'm 100% sure that wasn't me.

K-9

Nodin wrote: »

The most bizarre thing in this thread so far has been someone using it to do a bit of Shinner bashing, and I'm 100% sure that wasn't me.

Nah, the most bizarre thing was posters going on about bringing children to the cinema.