• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gun attack at Batman film premiere in Denver [W:120]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Has anyone stopped to calculate the odds of being killed by a deranged gunman as opposed to, say for example, being killed by some idiot who is texting and driving, or who likes to drink and drive?

It seems to me that the reason this is being made into such a big deal is not just the senselessness of it, or the loss of innocent life, as it is the rarity of such a thing happening.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Has anyone stopped to calculate the odds of being killed by a deranged gunman as opposed to, say for example, being killed by some idiot who is texting and driving, or who likes to drink and drive?

It seems to me that the reason this is being made into such a big deal is not just the senselessness of it, or the loss of innocent life, as it is the rarity of such a thing happening.
Click to expand...
I think rarity is definitely a part of it, another part is the sensationalism of it, text driving accidents are localized and expected so they don't register a blip, but when a pyschopath plans out wholesale slaughter of innocents it has a shock effect that boosts ratings. It's kind of a national version of rubbernecking at a gruesome accident.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Has anyone stopped to calculate the odds of being killed by a deranged gunman as opposed to, say for example, being killed by some idiot who is texting and driving, or who likes to drink and drive?

It seems to me that the reason this is being made into such a big deal is not just the senselessness of it, or the loss of innocent life, as it is the rarity of such a thing happening.
Click to expand...

I'd agree completely. I think it's the "unexpected factor." We expect people to die from drinking and driving / texting and driving. We don't expect to walk into a movie theatre and watch a crowd of people get shot. It just seems a bit hypocritical to me. :shrug:
 
LaMidRighter said:
Yeah, same with Laughner, both cases there were red flags not reported before they engaged in violence. The system is only as good as the record and reporting, if police think someone is a danger they MUST flag them, otherwise there are no further tools to go off of.
Click to expand...

Perhaps we could have a system where preventitive measures could serve as well.

Example say I live downtown D.C. and I walk into a store and say I'd like 5 sticks of dynamite any questions?

This kid bought 3 guns and a **** load of ammunition and he lives in Denver ?
What at 20 he decided to be a gun collector and bought the ammunition to look at?

Maybe he had big rats, or maybe he needed protection?
Or maybe just maybe some gun dealer was too busy counting money to ask.
Did he ask for a red gun to match his hair?:peace
 
Dittohead not! said:
Has anyone stopped to calculate the odds of being killed by a deranged gunman as opposed to, say for example, being killed by some idiot who is texting and driving, or who likes to drink and drive?

It seems to me that the reason this is being made into such a big deal is not just the senselessness of it, or the loss of innocent life, as it is the rarity of such a thing happening.
Click to expand...

12 DEAD, 58 WOUNDED FOR WATCHING A MOVIE?
I'd call that a big deal.
Has Americans came so far that instead of making gun owners uncomfortable or gun organizations feel bad , we just count Americans dieing as an acceptable loss?

This happens every time some say "doesn't happen that often " "next time it will be less."?

Kinda like letting the cows out and then saying "I'll get the door"?:peace
 
Dittohead not! said:
Has anyone stopped to calculate the odds of being killed by a deranged gunman as opposed to, say for example, being killed by some idiot who is texting and driving, or who likes to drink and drive?

It seems to me that the reason this is being made into such a big deal is not just the senselessness of it, or the loss of innocent life, as it is the rarity of such a thing happening.
Click to expand...
I think the odds are somewhere around 1 in 300 million. But in Colorado the odds seem to be far greater.
 
Tucker Case said:
Bull****. I can get a gun within a few hours illegally if I wanted to without setting foot in a gun show. If people want to use a gun for murder, as was the case here, they'll find a way to get the gun somehow. It's just like drugs. People find em, and no matter how many laws are thrown into the mix, they keep finding them.
Click to expand...

I completely agree that guns, just like drugs, can be obtained as long as somebody is willing to do what it takes to get what they want. However, do you think that since drugs can be obtained by anybody who wants them, it should be legal to buy heroin over the internet and have it shipped straight to your house? Just legalize crack since people are going to find a way to get it if they're determined enough? I think there should be much less regulation than there is now with regard to certain substances, ranging from synthetic marijuana to hallucinogenic drugs that could be useful in clinical settings. But I sure as hell don't think you should be able to order heroin online.

My point is that while I agree with what you said, that doesn't mean that all guns should be legal to purchase by anyone who doesn't have a felony (or have a felony yet). It makes no sense that weapon Holmes used in this shooting was legal for him to purchase, and it makes no sense that we have no system that can trigger red flags when a person suddenly spends thousands of dollars on firearms and ammunition. I'm not saying that gun control would have prevented this tragedy, but I do think that we need to have a system in place to ensure that gun sales are tightly regulated and anybody who chooses to own multiple guns goes through proper training and is using and storing their weapons safely.

I've seen a lot of responses from people against gun control because they use "semi-automatic" weapons for competitive shooting events and "hunting varmint." Fine, keep your guns, shoot squirrels and make your squirrel pie. But to have those kind of weapons, you should be properly vetted in order to prevent psychotic murderers from being able to obtain the weapons for a mass killing without breaking a single law. When you buy sudafed you have to show your ID and there are red flags when it looks like a person could be manufacturing methamphetamine. That's fine, but it's not ok to track people who have in their possession weapons that can kill hundreds of people? From what I've heard, Holmes had never owned a gun before and over a few months, he had thousands of rounds of ammunition and a semi-automatic rifle. I don't care how much you love squirrel pie, you should not be able to legally do that without any oversight whatsoever.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Yeah, same with Laughner, both cases there were red flags not reported before they engaged in violence. The system is only as good as the record and reporting, if police think someone is a danger they MUST flag them, otherwise there are no further tools to go off of.
Click to expand...

Problem is, though, in shall-issue states, there's nothing that anybody can do if they suspect a problem but the customer passes his or her background check.
 
presluc said:
Perhaps we could have a system where preventitive measures could serve as well.

Example say I live downtown D.C. and I walk into a store and say I'd like 5 sticks of dynamite any questions?

This kid bought 3 guns and a **** load of ammunition and he lives in Denver ?
What at 20 he decided to be a gun collector and bought the ammunition to look at?

Maybe he had big rats, or maybe he needed protection?
Or maybe just maybe some gun dealer was too busy counting money to ask.
Did he ask for a red gun to match his hair?:peace
Click to expand...
Realistically, like I said a while back, citizens willing to sign an affadavit should be able to flag people that seem to be very off, dangerously so.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Has anyone stopped to calculate the odds of being killed by a deranged gunman as opposed to, say for example, being killed by some idiot who is texting and driving, or who likes to drink and drive?

It seems to me that the reason this is being made into such a big deal is not just the senselessness of it, or the loss of innocent life, as it is the rarity of such a thing happening.
Click to expand...

That's absurd. Do you ever pick up a newspaper and see the front page headline reading "man's grocery store purchase totaled 10.00 even," or "local woman tries to call son, dials wrong number which happens to belong to old friend." The big deal is that hundreds of people's lives were destroyed and there is no known motive. And frankly, there should be safeguards in place to prevent psychopaths from killing innocent people, when their actions clearly provide ample suspicion to justify action being taken. A 24 year old drops out of school, purchases three guns including a semi-automatic rifle, has all these things delivered to his apartment, then is rejected from a shooting range for sounding and acting like a maniac. That's fine? You can only buy sudafed once or twice a month, but what he did is fine.

That's another part of why this is such a big deal. I'm sick of gun owners justifying the availability of any and all firearms. Can't we just agree that you can keep your guns and we can enact regulations that prevent them from falling into the hands of maniacs?
 
I wonder if he will get the death penalty or if he will plead insanity.
 
Phys251 said:
Problem is, though, in shall-issue states, there's nothing that anybody can do if they suspect a problem but the customer passes his or her background check.
Click to expand...
No, shall issue means that if everything checks out the issuing body has the right to issue but may ask further questions or delay issuance, must issue means that there is no scrutiny allowed if people can pass background checks. May issue is the tightest and completely up to the discretion of the issuing body, usually in states where discretion means "no".
 
LaMidRighter said:
No, shall issue means that if everything checks out the issuing body has the right to issue but may ask further questions or delay issuance, must issue means that there is no scrutiny allowed if people can pass background checks. May issue is the tightest and completely up to the discretion of the issuing body, usually in states where discretion means "no".
Click to expand...

Ah, gotcha. So there are some restrictions with shall-issue, but there's no leeway given to the powers-that-be to stop someone from buying a gun simply on a judgment call?
 
Phys251 said:
Ah, gotcha. So there are some restrictions with shall-issue, but there's no leeway given to the powers-that-be to stop someone from buying a gun simply on a judgment call?
Click to expand...
Not that I know of currently. I don't have a problem with smart policy, and would have no problem with say.....a relative or someone close to a suspicious person having the ability to sign an affadavit at least putting on hold their attempts to purchase or asking for further scrutiny on a particular individual basis, but it must protect people from false reporting.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Not that I know of currently. I don't have a problem with smart policy, and would have no problem with say.....a relative or someone close to a suspicious person having the ability to sign an affadavit at least putting on hold their attempts to purchase or asking for further scrutiny on a particular individual basis, but it must protect people from false reporting.
Click to expand...

Yeah. And this is where it's gonna get tricky. Say a state bans selling firearms to someone with a known mental disorder. Well, does that include serious afflictions of sociopathy and bipolar disorders, or is anyone who has even mild depression prohibited from buying a gun? I'd call the first "iffy" and the second a clear step beyond "well-regulated." And then there's the issue of confidentiality. Unless a patient reveals that he or she is planning on committing violence against himself, herself, or other people, mental health doctors are sworn to confidentiality--which they should be. Should that confidentiality be broken in order to stop some people from buying guns that probably shouldn't buy them? Man...if anyone wants to tackle that can of worms, be my guest.
 
Phys251 said:
Yeah. And this is where it's gonna get tricky. Say a state bans selling firearms to someone with a known mental disorder. Well, does that include serious afflictions of sociopathy and bipolar disorders, or is anyone who has even mild depression prohibited from buying a gun? I'd call the first "iffy" and the second a clear step beyond "well-regulated." And then there's the issue of confidentiality. Unless a patient reveals that he or she is planning on committing violence against himself, herself, or other people, mental health doctors are sworn to confidentiality--which they should be. Should that confidentiality be broken in order to stop some people from buying guns that probably shouldn't buy them? Man...if anyone wants to tackle that can of worms, be my guest.
Click to expand...
The current standard is involuntary commission to a mental facility, felony conviction, or dishonorable discharge. I am almost okay with that, I would take DD off of the table, allow someone who kept their nose clean for about 5-10 years to apply for full clemency and be fully reinstated, and have a "must be cleared" rule for involuntary commission to a facility. Then I would add the affadavit system, I think allowing for a flag based on a judicial order could serve that purpose satisfactorily without putting an undue burden on those who have no issues.
 
haymarket said:
I know of nobody who is talking of banning cars or firearms. The law puts restrictions on both however and limits what you can buy and use. That is not the same as a ban.
Click to expand...

You are wrong. I am not licensed to drive an 18 wheeler, but if I were so inclined I could buy one and use it. There are actually less restrictions on vehicles which have been more deadly and are not a constitutional right as there are on firearms which are a constitutional right and if used properly actually can save lives.
 
Jerry said:
For clarity: Colorado does not list malls and cinimas among it's 'restricted' or 'sensitive arias' such as government buildings and post secondary schools as gun-free zones. It was the cinema's own policy not to allow firearms.

I would have carried into this cinema despite the policy.
Click to expand...

after the massacre that would be the sane thing to do
 
haymarket said:
I know of nobody who is talking of banning cars or firearms. The law puts restrictions on both however and limits what you can buy and use. That is not the same as a ban.
Click to expand...

you are ignoring reality. there are lots of groups that want to ban handguns and semi automatic rifles that look scary.
 
haymarket said:
Yes, owning a firearm is a right. Nobody is disputing that. Owning any firearm you want is not a right as the government can and does place limits on how you exercise that right.
Click to expand...

and that is because the FDR regime was dishonest. they had to delegate themselves the power that could not be found in the constitution or intended by the founders to be granted

you are right, the federal government has given itself that power. But pardon me if I point out how blatantly dishonest and unconstitutional that delegation was
 
presluc said:
To buy a gun you must pass a background check.
After Virginia tech a lot of people question just how hard these background checks go , but the background checks stayed the same, after Arizona some people again questioned the background checks
After the Denver shootings once again people are questioning these background checks.

Meanwhile the NRA makes another speech while politicians plead sympathy and wished this hadn't happened.
Maybe with stricter background checks it won't happen again.

Maybe if a politician had the balls to pass a law without fear of hurting some big organizations feelings this might be prevented in the future.:peace
Click to expand...

what sort of background checks would please you> water boarding? the guy had no record. he had no history of court adjudicated incompetence.
 
Furiounova said:
It doesn't apply here but sometimes these social shootings have political motivations underscored by the far right such as the Adkins church shooting or the attempted assassination on Giffords.
Click to expand...

say Loughner was far right is moon battery
 
hazlnut said:
Public safety trumps every right.

"probable cause" "emanate danger" "kiddie porn" in all these situations your rights come second to the states interest in public safety.

Assault weapons are weapons of war. Why can't you own an RPG? Or a tank?
Click to expand...


More idiocy in that post. "assault weapons" are not weapons of war. Assault weapon is a term people who are afraid of guns use to try to scare others. Its a term made up by gun banners. It has no military usage and even the ATF firearms manual notes it is a term that has no real definition.

BTW the bolt action rifle that serves as the basis for about half the big game hunting rifles sold worldwide-the Mauser 98-was the german (and many other nations') standard infantry weapon of WWI and WWII
 
TurtleDude said:
what sort of background checks would please you> water boarding? the guy had no record. he had no history of court adjudicated incompetence.
Click to expand...

The guy had no history of buying 6000 rounds on the internet either.

That is the very definition of a RED FLAG!!!!
 
presluc said:
Flint,Columbine, Virginia Tech, Arizona, Denver funny they keep getting guns.:peace
Click to expand...

people die over drugs every day-despite the complete ban on crack people keep getting it

all you want to do is disarm honest people
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom