• 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.
apdst said:
Well, go ahead and clarify things for us. Please?
Click to expand...

How about making it a little more difficult for disturbed and bad people to get guns?:peace
 
Furiounova said:
I'm just exploring the disconnect that often leads to premature judgment creating dialogue suicide. After publicized shootings the left wants more gun laws and the right wants more guns with both being too blind to realize they are out of ammo.
Click to expand...
Incorrect, some on the left are calling for gun control while others want a dialogue on how this kid got to the point he came to. A very small minority on the right wants more guns, rather the majority wants people who don't have a full understanding of the arms subject to leave legitimate guns owners and the tools alone. It's that simple. Oh, and the majority on the right ALSO wants to know how this kid came to the violence that was engaged. Both sides rational voices are absolutely disgusted by what happened and that is the appropriate response.

I've been in your position except it was Chinese stars (even hand made a combo boomerang-CS) and scoped rifles and old hex barrel six shooters. It isn't about obsessing over the derivative purpose but only recognizing nothing can mitigate it and that is why AGs have a hard time believing gunners can also be intellectuals. Both groups need to realize mutual respect is the first order and without that, serious solution frameworks are impossible.
Click to expand...
Everything has a purpose and illicit use. Hammers drive force through objects, swords and knives cut, other tools pierce, bludgeon, tear, rend, etc. but can do so to human or animal flesh as well. Whether someone ****s up another human being with a gun, knife, sword, axe, battle axe, halberd, chinese star, etc. it is a usage, not the purpose. Now, the only thing I know of that is specifically designed to kill is poison, it has no other use.
 
apdst said:
Well, go ahead and clarify things for us. Please?
Click to expand...

Why do these incidents happen here so often with such regularity while no other single developed and advanced nation has this same problem? Can you answer that honestly?

I have repeatedly stated that the gun culture in America is unhealthy and places an almost reverential worship of firearms front and center as part of our American mythos. This must change. That is the first step. Guns must be looked at as simple tools - no more and no less.

This is a cultural problem that must be tackled or else nothing will work and these incidents will continue.

Why do these incidents happen here so often with such regularity while no other single developed and advanced nation has this same problem?
 
LaMidRighter said:
Incorrect, some on the left are calling for gun control while others want a dialogue on how this kid got to the point he came to. A very small minority on the right wants more guns, rather the majority wants people who don't have a full understanding of the arms subject to leave legitimate guns owners and the tools alone. It's that simple. Oh, and the majority on the right ALSO wants to know how this kid came to the violence that was engaged. Both sides rational voices are absolutely disgusted by what happened and that is the appropriate response.

Everything has a purpose and illicit use. Hammers drive force through objects, swords and knives cut, other tools pierce, bludgeon, tear, rend, etc. but can do so to human or animal flesh as well. Whether someone ****s up another human being with a gun, knife, sword, axe, battle axe, halberd, chinese star, etc. it is a usage, not the purpose. Now, the only thing I know of that is specifically designed to kill is poison, it has no other use.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that you could do more damage with a gallon of gasoline than you could ever do with a gun.
 
presluc said:
How about making it a little more difficult for disturbed and bad people to get guns?:peace
Click to expand...

How would we go about doing that?

There are safegaurds in place and nothing about Holmes caused any of them to kick in. What next?
 
apdst said:
Swords were designed to kill too. Wanna outlaw those, too?
Click to expand...

Obviously you dont need me to post for you to put words in my mouth so in the interest of efficiency, just skip the quote button, write whatever you want, put my name next to it, then respond with your best possible argument.
 
Harshaw said:
Not to mention that you could do more damage with a gallon of gasoline than you could ever do with a gun.
Click to expand...

I think carrying a gas can into a movie you might get noticed plus you can smell gas.
Next question?:peace
 
notquiteright said:
Wow this thread moves fast!
Goshin you are incorrect about the 2nd A referring to some 'unorganized militia'. The Militia Act of 1903 created and defined the unorganized militia. It also gave it the age boundaries, something that best not be mentioned in limiting firearm ownership as I am comfortably over 45 and have ZERO intention of 'standing down' and turning in any firearms I own.

Most of the 'evidence' on what the Founders meant by militia comes mostly from modern day 2nd A 'experts' and scant from actual contemporary Founder's writings that were recorded in the Constitution. A great deal of ink went into defining articles 1-3, but one poorly constructed sentence on what many claim to be THE final check on tyranny.

Great detail on how to select congress critters, nary a word on defining the militia. The duties of the President but not on the citizen's duty to the militia.
Click to expand...

I will differ with you on your modern day definition of 'mailitia' is. The malitia was a very old practice and was really the backbone of the Revolution. The founders knew exactly what a militia was adn as they had disolved the standing army, the militia was to be the first line of county defense. Of course the War of 1812 proved the need for a regular standing army, but the concept of the militia remained intact dating to the "able bodied man" law of 1793. The modern day definition that you are referring to with keeping and bering arms of the private citizen is the political NRA rhetoric that only muddles the realities.
 
Furiounova said:
Obviously you dont need me to post for you to put words in my mouth so in the interest of efficiency, just skip the quote button, write whatever you want, put my name next to it, then respond with your best possible argument.
Click to expand...

Asking an honest question is putting words in your mouth?
 
Harshaw said:
Not to mention that you could do more damage with a gallon of gasoline than you could ever do with a gun.
Click to expand...
That is true. Diesel is even worse, it doesn't burn as hot so the fire effect lasts longer. Anyone who disagrees should see the aftermath of a pump ignition at a gas station.
 
Furiounova said:
my problem is the right and left focus only on the guns. There is no honest dialogue on why this epidemic is occurring. You can't use the crazy people approach because other first world nations with similar cultures and guns are not experiencing this kind of terrorism on the same frequency.
Click to expand...

really? these sort of shootings are rather rare in a society as big as ours.
 
jet57 said:
I will differ with you on your modern day definition of 'mailitia' is. The malitia was a very old practice and was really the backbone of the Revolution. The founders knew exactly what a militia was adn as they had disolved the standing army, the militia was to be the first line of county defense. Of course the War of 1812 proved the need for a regular standing army, but the concept of the militia remained intact dating to the "able bodied man" law of 1793. The modern day definition that you are referring to with keeping and bering arms of the private citizen is the political NRA rhetoric that only muddles the realities.
Click to expand...

The United States has had a standing army since 1775.
 
apdst said:
Asking an honest question is putting words in your mouth?
Click to expand...

You know dam well I never said I want to outlaw guns and this is the kind of garbage that makes the entire purpose here meaningless.
 
Connery said:
Your assessment is both overly broad and far too simplistic. I used to carry a firearm until I stopped. In certain areas a firearm is is necessary, such as the wilderness where human population is low. In a crowded metropolitan area a firearm is can be a danger, especially when law enforcement is readily available. Moreover, there are two type of people that should not carry at all; those who are crazy and those who act irresponsibly. I do not wish to make gun control an issue, but, when firearms are made available too easily the crazy and irresponsible ones seem to the ones who are committing heinous acts with these weapons.

I never heard of a crazed killer ask someone if they were "on the right" or "on the left" before shooting them. Perhaps political perspectives are a non issue here and public safety is the issue at hand.
Click to expand...

I find that overly broad and simplistic. Cops are not usually available in the two or three minutes it takes someone to mug, brutalize or assault you.

why don't you tell us what laws would solve the problems you have noted without duly burdening us who are both responsible and sane?
 
presluc said:
I think carrying a gas can into a movie you might get noticed plus you can smell gas.
Next question?:peace
Click to expand...

So would a gun...oh, wait...this guy didn't cruise through the front door with a weapon. Did he?
 
Furiounova said:
You know dam well I never said I want to outlaw guns and this is the kind of garbage that makes the entire purpose here meaningless.
Click to expand...

Ok, well thanks for answering the question.
 
molten_dragon said:
Tell that to the people who took down Jared Loughner. None of them had guns.

My point though, is that it's just as despicable to use this as an excuse to campaign for getting rid of gun free zones as it is to use it to campaign for more gun control.
Click to expand...


gun free zones have no value other than making a killing zone safer for an active killer. places that do not prevent CCW holders have not seen as much killing as gun free zones
 
TurtleDude said:
really? these sort of shootings are rather rare in a society as big as ours.
Click to expand...

Public shootings are more common than what people think because they assume if it isn't on the news it isn't happening.
 
presluc said:
I think carrying a gas can into a movie you might get noticed plus you can smell gas.
Next question?:peace
Click to expand...
They didn't notice Holmes until he chemical bombed the theater, that actually has a more noxious smell than gasoline. And if the gas is contained properly you may never even notice it's presence until it's too late.
 
TurtleDude said:
I find that overly broad and simplistic. Cops are not usually available in the two or three minutes it takes someone to mug, brutalize or assault you.

why don't you tell us what laws would solve the problems you have noted without duly burdening us who are both responsible and sane?
Click to expand...

Allowing cops to be cops is the first place to start.
 
haymarket said:
I am not advocating an unarmed society. I am not advocating that we all be armed and carry.

I am not a person who wants to ban guns or ammunition and take away the guns of current owners.
I am not a NRA member who puts up centerfolds of the latest and greatest high powered rifle.

Is there not some place in the middle where people can advocate for responsible gun ownership but yet have reasonable laws which protect society from turning into Deadwood?
Click to expand...

the problem with your question is that there is no middle between those who want to ban guns for the sake of banning guns being confused for those who really want to stop crime. Most of the laws being proposed (in addition to laws that ban criminals, the insane, the addicted, and the youth from possessing guns and the laws that ban any harm you can do with a gun) are intended to hassle honest people or will only hassle honest people. For example, limits on how many guns you can buy a month ONLY targets those who can pass a background check because criminals CANNOT BUY ANY GUN in a month.
 
LaMidRighter said:
That is true. Diesel is even worse, it doesn't burn as hot so the fire effect lasts longer. Anyone who disagrees should see the aftermath of a pump ignition at a gas station.
Click to expand...

gasoline, Tide laundry detergent and vasoline.

a pipe, fertilizer, diesel fuel, a model rocket igniter and a 9 volt battery.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom