10 shot dead at Batman showing in Denver

Witcher · 22-07-2012 10:29PM

Nodin wrote: »

The classic example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh

You're wasting your time...the majority of people in this thread don't want rational discussion they just want to spout buzzwords like 'assault weapon/rifle, high powered AR15's' and all these phrases they've heard on the news when you know they couldn't even have drawn you a picture of a gun a week ago:pac:

MadsL · 22-07-2012 10:34PM

Wibbs wrote: »

JupiterKid wrote: »

If it wasn't for such an easy availability of guns and assault weapons in the USA there would not be nearly so many of these mass killing sprees that are sadly all too common in America.

What about other nations with high gun possession among the citizens? Switzerland for example? Or The Yemen? Or Saudi Arabia? How many Columbines do you recall from those nations?

I beleve I posted a list of rampage killings worldwide earlier, the Americas was behind Asia and Oceania in terms of numbers killed. Asian rampage killings with melée weapons feature quite often. Ban Chinese farm Implements?

Hande hoche! · 22-07-2012 10:35PM

MadsL wrote: »

I beleve I posted a list of rampage killings worldwide earlier, the Americas was behind Asia and Oceania in terms of numbers killed. Asian rampage killings with melée weapons feature quite often. Ban Chinese farm Implements?

True there was a slew of knife attacks on schools in China.

Witcher · 22-07-2012 10:37PM

Hande hoche! wrote: »

True there was a slew of knife attacks on schools in China.

Were they assault knives? It's common knowledge anything with 'assault' before it is far more dangerous than items without it.:pac:

Nodin · 22-07-2012 10:40PM

Blay wrote: »

Were they assault knives? It's common knowledge anything with 'assault' before it is far more dangerous than items without it.:pac:

Or "combat". Thats another one.

Hande hoche! · 22-07-2012 10:43PM

Nodin wrote: »

Or "combat". Thats another one.

I would add tactical to that list.

22-07-2012 10:43PM

Haelium wrote: »

The whole gun debate is a bit silly, from the sounds of it he would have been capable of more efficient carnage if he used explosives.

That's absurd logic.

You're saying that because explosives are potentially worse than guns, then by definition guns are perfectly okay and not part of the problem.

It's like saying that more people die from speeding than drink-driving, so therefore drink-driving isn't really a problem and we should allow it.

This type of simplistic comparative logic is idiotic and it has been used several times in this thread.

candy-gal1 · 22-07-2012 10:50PM

Didnt actually think this was real when i first heard, tbh i kinda assumed it was just some really wierd promo/trailer for the movie

:rolleyes:
Tis really shocking obviously and saddening, but on a slightly wierd note, id say this movie will do even more incredibly well that it would have done anyway, with all the publicity surrounding it now!

Piste · 22-07-2012 11:04PM

Augmerson wrote: »

In the end, you would have to say that there is something about the US that makes individuals turn into murderous psychopaths and kill innocent people. People are not born that way, maybe with a predisposition, but nobody is born a killer.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. It's too easy to blame guns, but doing so distracts from the issue at hand, that there's something about American culture or the way their society works that's conducive to gun crime.

K-9 · 22-07-2012 11:20PM

Haelium wrote: »

The whole gun debate is a bit silly, from the sounds of it he would have been capable of more efficient carnage if he used explosives.

Explosives are rather impersonal!

I don't know, comparing Canada and the US is probably a fair comparison. Both have pretty high gun ownership levels, on the same continent, with rather different results.

My name is URL · 22-07-2012 11:38PM

Piste wrote: »

I think you've hit the nail on the head. It's too easy to blame guns, but doing so distracts from the issue at hand, that there's something about American culture or the way their society works that's conducive to gun crime.

What would be the harm in introducing stricter firearm controls though?

If x is conductive of y, and x is as yet unknown then does it not make sense to make it as difficult as possible for that unknown x ever to arrive at y?

When it's easier to get hold of a gun than a Kinder Surprise, something major is wrong with your society.

Manic Moran · 22-07-2012 11:52PM

My name is URL wrote: »

What would be the harm in introducing stricter firearm controls though?

What do you have in mind which is feasible both from the practical aspect (eg there are mechanisms in place to conduct it, and which doesn't violate any Constitutional rights, so no random checking of people to see if they're carrying or checking what's in their houses, and no prohibitions on weapons 'commonly in use') and the political aspect (i.e. that politicians are even remotely going to consider or that the population will accept)?

When it's easier to get hold of a gun than a Kinder Surprise, something major is wrong with your society.

In fairness, I have had the objection to the 'cookie aisle' in US stores for quite some time. I am currently munching on one of several packets of Almond Fingers that I brought home with me last time I was in Ireland.

NTM

Piste · 22-07-2012 11:56PM

My name is URL wrote: »

What would be the harm in introducing stricter firearm controls though?

If x is conductive of y, and x is as yet unknown then does it not make sense to make it as difficult as possible for that unknown x ever to arrive at y?

When it's easier to get hold of a gun than a Kinder Surprise, something major is wrong with your society.

I didn't say there's a harm in it, just that it's not the underlying problem.

allthedoyles · 23-07-2012 12:27AM

Basq wrote: »

Before the screening of The Dark Knight Rises in Sligo on Friday night, they showed a trailer for 'Gangster Squad' in which four men shoot from behind a cinema screen at an audience! :eek:

It's apparently been pulled by WB, but it's definitely still on plenty of prints out there,

That trailer for Gangster Squad is on youtube .

Surely its been pulled since this ..

cloud493 · 23-07-2012 12:29AM

They showed that trailer for gangster squad at both my showings of the TDKR :cool:

K-9 · 23-07-2012 12:38AM

I just don't get it and please God I never will.

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.

If that's what you want, you are welcome to it. I wouldn't wish the hell of the cesspit of Northern Ireland, a population of 1.5 Million in the 80's, to anybody.

Tony EH · 23-07-2012 01:05AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Can't help but notice you picked an American-made EBR for your picture. Why not something like this Benelli R1 from one of our favourite Italian companies and used worldwide with little issue. I'll not be surprised if some people in Ireland have one.

http://www.benelliusa.com/assets/silos/medium_png/silo_1004_r1_300wm_aawalnut_standard_rifle_r1sights.png

Nowhere near as scary with the same emotional effect you desire, is it?

The pic I linked to was on the wiki article for the AR-15. The gun which is under discussion.

I haven't "desired", nor do I "desire" an "emotional effect" at all. So your attempt at being a dick is rather moot.

Nodin · 23-07-2012 01:06AM

K-9 wrote: »

I just don't get it and please God I never will.

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.

If that's what you want, you are welcome to it. I wouldn't wish the hell of the cesspit of Northern Ireland, a population of 1.5 Million in the 80's, to anybody.

...I had no idea legally held firearms were the basis for the conflict in NI. I had these absolutely mad notions to do with sectarianism, the history of the island and all that. Thank you for clarifying things.

Tony EH · 23-07-2012 01:10AM

Haelium wrote: »

The whole gun debate is a bit silly, from the sounds of it he would have been capable of more efficient carnage if he used explosives.

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.

K-9 · 23-07-2012 01:14AM

Nodin wrote: »

...I had no idea legally held firearms were the basis for the conflict in NI. I had these absolutely mad notions to do with sectarianism, the history of the island and all that. Thank you for clarifying things.

Indeed. I was trying to point this out to Madsl! The huge difference between Northern Ireland and the US, when she was trying to draw comparisons, we agree on that.

Off course a SF supporter would generally come down on the side of the gun, the bomb and the God knows what fecking else. That we don't agree on.

Witcher · 23-07-2012 01:20AM

I would hazard a guess that most people killed as a result of firearms outside of the military in the US...maybe even the world are killed by either a shotgun or a small calibre like a .22lr...(Manic Moran stated in a previous post that the calibre is believed to kill the most people every year). So the backlash against 'assault rifles' and 'high powered weapons' is misdirected really.

Nodin · 23-07-2012 01:37AM

K-9 wrote: »

Indeed. I was trying to point this out to Madsl! The huge difference between Northern Ireland and the US, when she was trying to draw comparisons, we agree on that..

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.

K-9 wrote: »

Off course a SF supporter would generally come down on the side of the gun, the bomb and the God knows what fecking else. That we don't agree on.

"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.

Manic Moran · 23-07-2012 02:14AM

Tony EH wrote: »

The pic I linked to was on the wiki article for the AR-15. The gun which is under discussion.

So your issue is with AR-15s specifically then, not any other.223 semi autos which can have black plastic furniture and rail mounts? How about an AR-15 with wooden furniture, no tac-rails and a hunting scope?
http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm138/FlintlockTom/ar15_wood.jpg

I haven't "desired", nor do I "desire" an "emotional effect" at all. So your attempt at being a dick is rather moot.

Your arguments certainly haven't been focusing on an objective standard, so there aren't many other options. Why else would you have linked to a picture of the outside of the rifle, if it wasn't to say "Just look at it! It's evil!" and appeal to people's perceptions? It certainly doesn't reflect upon practically legislateable characteristics.

Tony EH · 23-07-2012 03:14AM

People like you never get it and will never get it.

The point is that weaponry should not be sold over the counter in such a blasé manner, without rigorous hoops being employed. Otherwise these type of incidents will keep on happening.

It's the ease with which such killing tools are available that's the problem.

America is the joke of the world when it comes to these type of scenarios and it'll remain a factor until the bull**** is done away with and gun control is tackled in a serious manner.

We're taking about a guy who tooled up with some serious weapons, ammo and amour with incredible ease...

...and people like you want to bleat on about the colour of the stock?

Reindeer · 23-07-2012 03:38AM

Tony EH wrote: »

People like you never get it and will never get it.

The point is that weaponry should not be sold over the counter in such a blasé manner, without rigorous hoops being employed. Otherwise these type of incidents will keep on happening.

It's the ease with which such killing tools are available that's the problem.

America is the joke of the world when it comes to these type of scenarios and it'll remain a factor until the bull**** is done away with and gun control is tackled in a serious manner.

We're taking about a guy who tooled up with some serious weapons, ammo and amour with incredible ease...

...and people like you want to bleat on about the colour of the stock?

What sort of safe guards would you suggest?

asherbassad · 23-07-2012 03:45AM

charlietheminxx wrote: »

:eek: What is WRONG with the world??

This shocks you but the daily slaughter of others around the world doesn't?

What is WRONG with the world?

??

Tony EH · 23-07-2012 04:17AM

Reindeer wrote: »

What sort of safe guards would you suggest?

Well, as I've already said, an evaluation by a qualified professional of the psychological capacity of the wannabe gun owner should happen before they get their hands on any firearm.

A definite age requirement across all states would help. 21, just like the age one has to be to by a can of beer.

A long waiting period, during which a more thorough background check can be employed.

An examination of the person's justification for wanted to own a firearm, or multiple firearms in the first place.

Perhaps a yearly qualification should be in place too, which you either pass or fail. Failure means no guns.

There are ways around the problem; it just takes the balls to do it. US politicians are unwilling to go against the pro-gun ****wits who keep on spouting nonsense about "rights". Those "rights" allow people with severe mental disorders to tool up with weapons with unbelievable ease and carry out these massacres with sickening regularity.

How about the "rights" of somebody to attend a movie without having their 9 year old daughter shot in the back?

Manic Moran · 23-07-2012 04:22AM

Tony EH wrote: »

The point is that weaponry should not be sold over the counter in such a blasé manner, without rigorous hoops being employed. Otherwise these type of incidents will keep on happening.

I am still waiting, then, for your rational definition of 'that weaponry', which perhaps could be entered into practicable legislation which would prohibit the kinds of rifle you dislike but will allow the use of rifles for purposes which you do like. If you can't define 'that weaponry', then I would be curious to hear your proposal as to what sort of practicable methodology could be employed to reduce the blasé-ness of the purchasing process itself.

[Edit, just saw your previous post. Stand by for next one]

It's the ease with which such killing tools are available that's the problem.

Only part of the problem. And they are also a solution to a number of other problems for which the rifles are well suited, so if you take away that solution, you need to also provide practicable alternatives.

America is the joke of the world when it comes to these type of scenarios and it'll remain a factor until the bull**** is done away with and gun control is tackled in a serious manner.

Yet we all accept that the guns aren't the problem, as many other nations have ownership of similar firearms, the problem lies elsewhere. You propose putting a bandaid on a finger cut when the patient is bleeding from the jugular.

...and people like you want to bleat on about the colour of the stock?

You're the one who posted the picture so we could all see what an AR-15 looked like.

NTM

Manic Moran · 23-07-2012 04:37AM

Tony EH wrote: »

Well, as I've already said, an evaluation by a qualified professional of the psychological capacity of the wannabe gun owner should happen before they get their hands on any firearm.

Paid for by whom? Bear in mind, it is unConstitutional to make carrying out a Contsitutional Right unaffordable to any persons who may wish to exercise that right, so it means coming out of the government's coffers. Given that there are some 80 million gun owners in the US, you're talking some serious dinerii.

Canada attempted to do nothing more than establish a database of who owned rifles in the country, a much smaller population, and a much more affordable task. After fifteen years, and over a billion dollars, the registry was abandoned as ineffective and a waste of money.

A definite age requirement across all states would help. 21, just like the age one has to be to by a can of beer.

Well, I have my own issues with the 21-year-old limit for beer, but there are national age minima. To buy a handgun from a dealer you must be 21, for a long gun you must be 18. Some States have their own lower limits for certain circumstances like intra-familiar transfers (eg father to son).

A long waiting period, during which a more thorough background check can be employed.

Which will check what, exactly? The National Instant Criminal Background Check System checks on an individual's record, both criminal and mental. What other things do you believe should be checked in this process, and who will pay for the checking to be carried out?

An examination of the person's justification for wanted to own a firearm, or multiple firearms in the first place.

That's a non-starter. One does not need to explain why one wishes to exercise a right, that the right exists is sufficient grounds. But if the answer is "Self defence", that answers that, as the Supreme Court has said it's a right which every American is authorised to use a firearm for.

Perhaps a yearly qualification should be in place too, which you either pass or fail. Failure means no guns.

The government shall hire the instructors and certification process then? The other problem is that, again, you will be arguing the Constitution. Arms are a right, not a privilige. (Besides, isn't the problem you're trying to assess that the people in question are hitting their targets? Surely it's the ones who miss and will fail the qualification that you're not so worried about!)

the pro-gun ****wits who keep on spouting nonsense about "rights". Those "rights" allow people with severe mental disorders to tool up with weapons with unbelievable ease and carry out these massacres with sickening regularity.

Those rights also deserve not to be in quotation marks, because they are legally recognised. You may not like the right, but the right exists.

How about the "rights" of somebody to attend a movie without having their 9 year old daughter shot in the back?

Aren't the murder laws supposed to cover that? Or the laws on self defence?

NTM

MadsL · 23-07-2012 04:48AM

Tony EH wrote: »

Well, as I've already said, an evaluation by a qualified professional of the psychological capacity of the wannabe gun owner should happen before they get their hands on any firearm.

A definite age requirement across all states would help. 21, just like the age one has to be to by a can of beer.

A long waiting period, during which a more thorough background check can be employed.

An examination of the person's justification for wanted to own a firearm, or multiple firearms in the first place.

Perhaps a yearly qualification should be in place too, which you either pass or fail. Failure means no guns.

You just described the majority of the requirements for a Concealed Carry permit most states. Colorado can take up to 90 days to issue a permit.

http://www.usacarry.com/colorado_concealed_carry_permit_information.html

In some states a waiver is signed to alllow the state to open and examine any psychological records.

10 shot dead at Batman showing in Denver

Comments