10 shot dead at Batman showing in Denver

hooradiation wrote: »

Yeah.... except the not only has Obama done nothing on gun control, he's signed two separate bills that had unrelated pro-gun riders attached to them (this is typical Republican strategy to kill bills they dont like). So he has expanded gun rights. You can now bring guns into national parks, and also in checked baggage on AMTRAK.

Reindeer has very effectively covered the reasons why you might need a firearm in a National Park - vast areas of wilderness, not to mention the possibility of running into a weed factory where the 'gardeners' are not keen on people makng it out of there alive.

As far as checked luggage on Amtrack -all this provision does is bring Amtrack into line with the airlines checked weapon policy and allow licenced weapon holders to travel by train.

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Harder to claim temporary insanity when you have your flat laced with bombs. Shows a high level of premeditation.

Most states made their laws enough tighter than the feds.' Colorado is among them. Daniel Filler, "a criminal law expert and professor in the Earle Mack School of Law at Drexel University in Philadelphia," writes The Christian Science Monitor:

"Says the insanity defense will certainly be under consideration. But, he notes, Colorado is one of the tougher states in terms of using what is often a controversial defense.

"The Colorado insanity defense clause has two requirements, he says. First, the defendant must have been suffering from a genuine mental illness at the time of the crime. 'It cannot be something that was drug-induced,' for example, he notes."

Then, the defense must show that the accused didn't know right from wrong

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/07/24/157277331/post-hinckley-changes-make-insanity-defense-hard-for-colo-suspect

Canis Lupus wrote: »

What can be done? To me the situation in America is that the horse has bolted already. I would imagine changes can be made but to suggest it's possible to stop someone from getting a gun and going on a shooting spree if they truly want to in the US is frankly naive

So, again, what this boils down to and what most pro-gun fools "points" boil down to, is "Fuck it, I don't care if 9 year old kids get killed at a Batman movie, I want my toys."

And how is making guns harder to get in order to stop madmen like this "naive". That's just stupid.

The present situation where somebody with severe mental issues can go and buy, not only three weapons, but body armour and a helmet withing a very short space of time, is utterly ridiculous.

These type of incidents are bound to happen and keep happening, if something isn't done to at least TRY and keep this sort of gear out of the hands of nutcases.

Manic Moran wrote: »

I could take offence to that, as I'm rather fond of my daughter and would rather she lived (a) longer than me, and (b) long enough to raise my grandkids.

Feel free to take offence, because essentially that's what the "do nothing" approach means.

It means you don't give a shit. Or don't give a shit enough to see tighter controls on weapons.

Manic Moran wrote: »

It can never be completely stemmed. I think there are some things which can be done which would be acceptable politically and practically, however.

For example, provide sufficient funding to make all the State criminal and mental IT systems work together so that NICS works like it is supposed to. The reason Cho bought his Glock, for example, was that the Virginia system wasn't talking to the Federal system.

Allow an access mechanism for private party sales to utilise NICS. Currently there is no system in place for it.

Should 'fill in some of the gaps', I think.

I would agree with those measures and reiterate the points I made earlier about a psychological evaluation pre gun sale. A long waiting period between purchase and ownership of weaponry, where the time can be used to investigate the person wishing to buy the weaponry and their stated reasons for wanting to own their weapon. A national age restriction. No-one under 21 should be allowed near a gun.

Contrary to your "impractical" dismissal, I can see real barriers to this being done, other than pissing some pro-gun idiots off.

The benefits outweigh the cost, when that cost is people losing their children at a batman movie, or going to school, etc.

Weapons SHOULD NOT be sold to just anyone who walks off the street.

Tony EH wrote: »

So, again, what this boils down to and what most pro-gun fools "points" boil down to, is "Fuck it, I don't care if 9 year old kids get killed at a Batman movie, I want my toys."

If you genuinely believe that is the attitude of responsible gun-owners in the US then there is no point in trying to have a reasonable debate with you.

And how is making guns harder to get in order to stop madmen like this "naive". That's just stupid.

Because generally speaking the legal availability of guns does not have a impact on the homicide rate with guns. Don't believe me? Here is the list of the top ten countries rate of homicide with guns.

Rank Country Rate/100,000 Right to bear
#1 South Africa: 74.5748 No
#2 Colombia: 51.7683 Yes
#3 Thailand: 33.0016 No
#4 Guatemala: 18.5 Yes
#5 Paraguay: 7.3508 No
#6 Zimbabwe: 4.746 No
#7 Mexico: 3.6622 No
#8 United States: 3.6 Yes
#9 Belarus: 3.31 No
#10 Barbados: 2.9963 No
#11 Uruguay: 2.5172 No


URL="http://www.gunpolicy.org"]source legal status per country[/URL

You argument about limiting the right to bear arms should mean that right to bear countries have a disproportionate appearance in the homicide league table. Yet they don't. Which means that other factors are at play. However, most "ban 'em" arguments don't examine the evidence even that far. Kneejerk reactions to events like this one mean that it is impossible for most rational people to see beyond emotive bull**** about 9 year olds.

The present situation where somebody with severe mental issues can go and buy, not only three weapons, but body armour and a helmet withing a very short space of time, is utterly ridiculous.

You know - here's whats weird. I agree with you. However a Phd medical student would have no difficulty in getting a clean bill of mental sanity, unless you are suggesting hours and hours of deep mental examination for each gun applicant.

The roots of sociopathic violence in US society are much more complex than you simplistic "ban em" argument. Cutting off access to guns will not prevent similar terrible events like this happening again, Timothy McVeigh should be your tip off there.

These type of incidents are bound to happen and keep happening, if something isn't done to at least TRY and keep this sort of gear out of the hands of nutcases.

Do you feel the same about knife crime in the UK? That knives should be keep out of the hands of nutcases? Or baseball bats? Keeping "gear' from nutjobs implies a world wrapped in bubblewrap, you will have a long furrow to plough going that route.

It wasn't me! wrote: »

You know that in Ireland, you can be granted a training licence at 14, right, and a full firearms certificate at 16? No problems with that here, and most of Europe, kids are shooting airguns from eight or nine and smallbore rifles from about twelve on, for competition. No problems there.

The difference is in the type of weapons and the ease with which to buy them over the counter. You can't just walk into a shop in Galway and buy a semi-auto assault rifle and walk out again.

We also don't have the gun fetish that the States has. Ireland has a very different attitude to guns in general.

Tony EH wrote: »

However, the current ease with which anyone can get guns in the States is a serious, serious issue and evaluations aside they should be made harder to get and downright impossible for some people.

You are aware that statement simply isn't true and that constantly repeating it doesn't make it more truthful? An FBI background check is mandatory.

Mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998, NICS is used by Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to instantly determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to buy firearms or explosives. Before ringing up the sale, cashiers call in a check to the FBI or to other designated agencies to ensure that each customer does not have a criminal record or isn’t otherwise ineligible to make a purchase. More than 100 million such checks have been made in the last decade, leading to more than 700,000 denials.

URL="http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/nics"]source[/URL



(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to
sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or
ammunition to any person knowing or
having reasonable cause to believe that
such person—
(1) is under indictment for, or has
been convicted in any court of, a crime
punishable by imprisonment for a term
exceeding one year;
(2) is a fugitive from justice;
(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted
to any controlled substance (as defined
in section 102 of the Controlled Substances
Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) has been adjudicated as a mental
defective or has been committed to any
mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien—
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the
United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection
(y)(2), has been admitted to the
United States under a nonimmigrant
visa (as that term is defined in section
101(a)(26) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(26));
(6) who has been discharged from
the Armed Forces under dishonorable
conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the
United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) is subject to a court order that restrains
such person from harassing,
stalking, or threatening an intimate
partner of such person or child of such
intimate partner or person, or engaging
in other conduct that would place an intimate
partner in reasonable fear of
bodily injury to the partner or child, except
that this paragraph shall only apply
to a court order that—
(A) was issued after a hearing of
which such person received actual
notice, and at which such person had
the opportunity to participate; and
(B) (i) includes a finding that such
person represents a credible threat to
the physical safety of such intimate
partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits
the use, attempted use, or
threatened use of physical force
against such intimate partner or
child that would reasonably be expected
to cause bodily injury; or
(9) has been convicted in any court
of a misdemeanor crime of domestic
violence.

http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf

Tony EH wrote: »

The difference is in the type of weapons and the ease with which to buy them over the counter. You can't just walk into a shop in Galway and buy a semi-auto assault rifle and walk out again.

We also don't have the gun fetish that the States has. Ireland has a very different attitude to guns in general.

Firstly, an assault rifle requires selective fire capability, so you can't buy it in the states either, for the most part. Second, there are semi-auto rifles here in the exact same calibres and chamberings, so under our own licensing system, you can have an AR15 if you can justify it.

As to "gun fetish", well, I'm not entirely sure I get you. I shoot a lot myself (somewhere around 12000 rounds a year) and I like firearms. I'm interested in how they work, what makes the good ones really good and so forth. They're art and science.

Mickeroo wrote: »

Its a different culture in fairness, this might sound like a silly comparison but people from some countries find equally perplexing the need for potatoes with every meal we have here. When you look at the history of america its not hard to see why guns are viewed in the way they are imo.

I'm finding it difficult to recall that last potato massace though.

Tony EH wrote: »

Where have I said "ban 'em"?

Oh, sorry. I must have misunderstood, when you referred to them as "terrible toys" that was you conceding that privately held guns have a useful purpose. So you are not in favour of a total ban. Right, so which guns would you increase controls on, and why? What controls would you implement?

You see this is the problem with the pro-gun crowd. "Yall aint gonna ban ur gunnnns!!" is the default position.

You see this is the problem with your immature attitude, characturing gun owners as redneck idiots. Really does little for your argument other than identify you as a reactionary. As I have said before "pro-gun" is about as useful as saying "pro-life/pro-choice" - it is just a lazy way of emotively calling out "which side are you on?" without bothering to engage your brain. Do try harder.

I'm saying tighter controls are needed. I never mentioned ban once.

As above, care to be specific. And could you stop with the nonsense about "anyone" buying a gun, that is demonstratively untrue.

If Holmes had gone into the cinema with a knife, or a baseball bat...

See how silly your argument is here?

Or petrol or home-made explosives? See how silly your argument is here?

There is absolutely no legitimate reason any sane person would want to posses 6,000 rounds of ammunition or several automatic or semi automatic weapons.

If guns must be legal, they must also be limited sensibly. How did he manage to amass so many weapons without any alarms going off anywhere?