• 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.
To be more factual about the 'Wild West' and firearm deaths the links fail to mention one key factor. Many cow towns in the West, like Dodge City, had severe gun prohibitions. Yes just like DC today, many had a prohibition on carrying pistols in the street, a far cry from the Hollywood myth.

The 'Shoot-out at the OK Corral' is highly popularized as an example of the Wild West where a dozen men faced off at point blank range and had at it-

a total of THREE men died that day, not even a average weekend in any major city these days.

Here in Oklahoma we had a pretty good push to permit Open Carry, with a permit of course, but the Republican leadership quietly sat on it.

I think the rational path lies somewhere between the all or nothing debate that drives the 'gun' control issue.

I can't say I am sad even the strongly 'Conservative' politicians had some sense and stopped short of the more extreme rhetoric.
 
Do you think this psycho would have stayed home that night if he couldn't get a 100-round mag?

He apparently booby-trapped his apartment, setting his stereo to blare techno music at midnight so that if/when law enforcement opened his door the gasoline bombs would go off. If we banned gasoline and techno music, would the outcome have been any different? Apparently some sort of fireworks are also part of his booby-traps, should we ban fireworks?

My local liberal mouthpiece (formerly a "news" channel) is whining about this psycho's ability to purchase as much ammunition as he did (6,000 rounds via the internet). I don't know how many rounds he actually used, but I'm guessing he didn't use 6,000 rounds. So what limit should we apply to gun owners purchasing ammunition? Remember the fact that only responsible gun-owners follow the gun laws, the criminals and crazies do not follow the law. Clearly.

Banning law-abiding, sane citizens from purchasing potentially lethal items doesn't cure crazy. Crazy will always find a way.

The point is that there is no rational reason for anyone who isn't contemplating a massacre to have a 100-round magazine, and if he had had to change magazines it would have perhaps decreased the death, injury count, or given someone a chance to rush him or fire back when he changed magazines ... even if it just takes a couple seconds.
 
Do you think this psycho would have stayed home that night if he couldn't get a 100-round mag?

He apparently booby-trapped his apartment, setting his stereo to blare techno music at midnight so that if/when law enforcement opened his door the gasoline bombs would go off. If we banned gasoline and techno music, would the outcome have been any different? Apparently some sort of fireworks are also part of his booby-traps, should we ban fireworks?

My local liberal mouthpiece (formerly a "news" channel) is whining about this psycho's ability to purchase as much ammunition as he did (6,000 rounds via the internet). I don't know how many rounds he actually used, but I'm guessing he didn't use 6,000 rounds. So what limit should we apply to gun owners purchasing ammunition? Remember the fact that only responsible gun-owners follow the gun laws, the criminals and crazies do not follow the law. Clearly.

Banning law-abiding, sane citizens from purchasing potentially lethal items doesn't cure crazy. Crazy will always find a way.


Exactly. 6000 rounds does not equate to 6000 bodies; even Zeitszov (sp?) missed a shot now and then. Also, nobody is going to get to fire 6,000 rounds at innocent people without being stopped by either armed citizens or armed police long before he fires even a tenth of his ammo. This incident is case-in-point.

Hell, I probably have 6000 rounds here at my house. We do a lot of target shooting. A lot of it is cheap 22 rimfire ammo for plinking though...
 
Crazy (and evil) will find a way--sarin gas, bombs, cyanide, whatever.
 
Goshin
I appreciate your honest post. However, I would say that we are not in the middle. We have not found that place. By your own admission, we have more guns and more carry laws than every before in recent memory. The right has won this issue and they have prevailed. And these sort of things keep happening. And they happen here in the USA more than anywhere else.

Why is that?

I heard somebody on the radio ask a question today and it was food for thought. I will ask it of you and anyone who wants to answer: If a gunman did this to a session of Congress and seventy members were shot - a dozen fatally - would the topic of gun be off the table the way it seems to be whenever these things happen today and for the last few years?

We have had a complete ban on recreational drugs for decades yet see no decrease in their use OR in the violent crime used to control their distribution and sale. We KNOW that these whacko's that seek to blow away as many folks as possible can get guns ILLEGALLY quite easily, this nut PLANNED this "event" even for quite some time, and surely would have committed crimes to obtain the needed weapons and ammo.

To attempt to alter the constitution or laws in the 50 states to prevent something like this from "ever happening again" is VERY unlikely to work. If criminals feel that they gain more advantage, by assuring them that they will RARELY encounter any armed resistance, they will commit more crime, not less. Even though the media is all hyped up over this ONE event in CO, we must remember that far more than 12 die in a typical week in Chicago.

Do you REALLY think that criminals would NOT use guns if they were illegal? We KNOW that criminals still sell drugs even after they were made illegal. A national gun ban is NOT going to happen, we already have a national crime ban. Fortunately we must wait for crime to happen to make an arrest, you seem to want "preventive" arrests simply for having guns, exactly the same as the "war on drugs", but strangely we now IGNORE most of those that simply have or sell drugs, and go after the "big fish". It is not more laws that we need but very swift and sure JUSTICE for those that break them.
 
Crazy (and evil) will find a way--sarin gas, bombs, cyanide, whatever.

and why does crazy and evil find its way far more often in the USA than in any other single society?
 
and why does crazy and evil find its way far more often in the USA than in any other single society?


As I've said before, I've examined homicide rates for many different countries, and examined what factors they have in common.

Just FYI, there are MANY nations in the world with FAR higher homicide rates than the USA. Several times higher.

Some of them have strict gun laws, some don't. The things they have in common are as follows:
1. Corrupt or ineffective government/law.
2. Poverty.
3. Some kind of violent factionalism, be it tribes or gangs or whatever, often combined with a lucrative drug trade.


We (the USA) have two out of three. Despite being a wealthy country overall, we do have a substantial percentage in relative poverty. Even if the poor in the USA are not "poor" by Somali standards, they are poor by US standards.... and this creates resentment and a desire to have what others have.
We certainly have gangs, factions and drug trade a-plenty.

We also have 330 million people, and a culture that puts a lot of pressure (hence, stress) on most individuals.... so we have psycho nutjobs now and then. As a percentage of the huge population though, these psycho nutjob rampages are still relatively rare overall.
 
This writer is spot on.

We don’t have enough information to make a judgment about what happened, much less use it to argue any point. What’s more, there’s something disrespectful in the rush to debate; let’s mourn for the victims before we begin to argue causes or consequences. It may well be the case that this shooting warrants a renewed national conversation over the wisdom of loose gun control. But it’s important to recognize the extent to which stricter gun laws aren’t a solution that will do away with mass shootings. If you are determined to kill a lot of people, you’ll find a way to meet your goal; after all, illegal guns work just as well as legal ones.

Finally, I want to second tech writer Anil Dash when he suggests that we look at this from the perspective of our culture and not our politics. He writes, “We marginalize & neglect our sons when they feel vulnerable, stigmatize depression & schizophrenia, and treat violence as entertainment.” Does the easy availability of firearms make mass shootings more likely than they otherwise would be? Probably. But Dash hits on a more important truth: Our treatment and understanding of mental illness is not a priority in our culture, especially when it comes to men, and it should be. What’s more, even when it comes to mentally healthy men, there are few socially acceptable ways to express their fears, their pain, and their anxieties, and boys are still raised to reject emotional expression as somehow un-masculine. “Stop crying, be a man” is still a thing that parents say to their sons, and it’s incredibly destructive

Let
 
from tw78640

We have had a complete ban on recreational drugs for decades yet see no decrease in their use OR in the violent crime used to control their distribution and sale.

I have seen nothing of the kind in my state of Michigan. Perhaps things are different where you live. China went to a ban on opium after the Communist revolution and it was tremendously effective and successful. Of course, they were serious which we seem not to be. I am NOT advocating we do what China did - but our efforts are half-assed at best - fully assed at worst.


We KNOW that these whacko's that seek to blow away as many folks as possible can get guns ILLEGALLY quite easily, this nut PLANNED this "event" even for quite some time, and surely would have committed crimes to obtain the needed weapons and ammo.

This latest case purchased the guns LEGALLY.

To attempt to alter the constitution or laws in the 50 states to prevent something like this from "ever happening again" is VERY unlikely to work.

One could also say that what we have today is not working either.

If criminals feel that they gain more advantage, by assuring them that they will RARELY encounter any armed resistance, they will commit more crime, not less.

A few posts ago Goshin reminded us that we have more guns today and more people are open carrying them than at any time in recent memory. So apparently this does not frighten the ones who do these things.


Even though the media is all hyped up over this ONE event in CO, we must remember that far more than 12 die in a typical week in Chicago.

Yes - this one event in Colorado. Or is it one event in Virginia? Or just one event in Texas? Or just a single event in Michigan? I think you get the point.


Do you REALLY think that criminals would NOT use guns if they were illegal?

I have no idea as to any accurate answer that can be proved beyond doubt. However, I see little suport for making guns illegal so its really more of a strawman proposition.

We KNOW that criminals still sell drugs even after they were made illegal.

Yes. Because we are not serious. Again, look up the history of opium in China and what happened to it in the 1950's.

A national gun ban is NOT going to happen, we already have a national crime ban.
Which nobody seems to be advocating so this is yet another strawman.

Fortunately we must wait for crime to happen to make an arrest, you seem to want "preventive" arrests simply for having guns, exactly the same as the "war on drugs", but strangely we now IGNORE most of those that simply have or sell drugs, and go after the "big fish". It is not more laws that we need but very swift and sure JUSTICE for those that break them.

First, I see not actual real true honest-to-goodness balls-to-the-walls war on drugs that exists in any sense beyond a mere media tag that is hollow and an oxymoron.
Second, nobody is advocating arresting people who are gun owners.
 
As I've said before, I've examined homicide rates for many different countries, and examined what factors they have in common.

Just FYI, there are MANY nations in the world with FAR higher homicide rates than the USA. Several times higher.

Some of them have strict gun laws, some don't. The things they have in common are as follows:
1. Corrupt or ineffective government/law.
2. Poverty.
3. Some kind of violent factionalism, be it tribes or gangs or whatever, often combined with a lucrative drug trade.


We (the USA) have two out of three. Despite being a wealthy country overall, we do have a substantial percentage in relative poverty. Even if the poor in the USA are not "poor" by Somali standards, they are poor by US standards.... and this creates resentment and a desire to have what others have.
We certainly have gangs, factions and drug trade a-plenty.

We also have 330 million people, and a culture that puts a lot of pressure (hence, stress) on most individuals.... so we have psycho nutjobs now and then. As a percentage of the huge population though, these psycho nutjob rampages are still relatively rare overall.

Does Canada not have many of those factors? And England? And Ireland? And France? And Germany? And Italy?
 
The point is that there is no rational reason for anyone who isn't contemplating a massacre to have a 100-round magazine, and if he had had to change magazines it would have perhaps decreased the death, injury count, or given someone a chance to rush him or fire back when he changed magazines ... even if it just takes a couple seconds.
I have a 100-round mag. My hunting buddies do as well. I'm not contemplating a massacre, and given the history of my friends, I can guarantee that they don't either.

He had four guns total, all loaded. He could have gotten more guns, all loaded (if he was a gang-banger from Chicago's South Side, he could have gotten dozens and dozens of loaded guns, all without the pesky nuisance of gun laws). Dropping an empty weapon and grabbing a loaded one takes a second or so.

One of my old redneck buddies once made an extrememely effective flamethrower out of a bug sprayer. This Holmes nutjob was very intelligent by all reports, I'm sure if high capacity magazines were outlawed he would have figured out a way to kill a lot of people anyway.

Again, taking away the rights of sane, law-abiding citizens won't cure crazy.
 
Does Canada not have many of those factors? And England? And Ireland? And France? And Germany? And Italy?

Ineffective govment and law check.
Poverty check.
Violent Factionalism check. (Gangs) (Also depends on your definition of violent factionalism)

Yet our murder rate is far lower.
 
Last edited:
Does Canada not have many of those factors? And England? And Ireland? And France? And Germany? And Italy?

To some degree. England has a lot of violence, btw... but as I've noted before, they've NEVER had as many shootings or killings as we do, even when they had lax gun laws.

Cultural factors are very much in play in comparing different countries and what happens there in terms of violence. Without taking these factors into account, it becomes and apples-to-oranges comparison.

There have been mass shootings in many other modernized Western nations, most recently a terrible one in Norway, for instance. Yes, it is more frequent here.... why? That's a complex question with a complex answer, in which many factors are at work: our societal glorification of violence and violent entertainment, our "machismo", our stimatization of mental illness and lack of resources to treat same, our huge and very diverse population (we have states more populous than most European nations, and typically far more diverse culturally and ethnically), the specific pressures and stresses to which we subject ourselves (ie most European nations have a slower-paced lifestyle where they are more casual about deadlines, whereas being 5minutes late for work in the US can get you fired, as a minor example), our cultural heritage as a nation founded by revolution and expanded through conquest of the Native-occupied frontier.... the list could go on and on.

There are no simple or one-dimensional solutions to psycho rampages.
 
Ineffective govment and law check.
Poverty check.
Violent Factionalism check. (Gangs) (Also depends on your definition of violent factionalism)

Yet our murder rate is far lower.


Yet you still have rather a lot of guns in circulation compared to most European nations. I have Canadian friends who own small arsenals including AR15's, legally.



Personally I think Canadians are just too polite to murder each other very often. Bad show, just not done eh? :mrgreen:
 
As I've said before, I've examined homicide rates for many different countries, and examined what factors they have in common.

Just FYI, there are MANY nations in the world with FAR higher homicide rates than the USA. Several times higher.

Some of them have strict gun laws, some don't. The things they have in common are as follows:
1. Corrupt or ineffective government/law.
2. Poverty.
3. Some kind of violent factionalism, be it tribes or gangs or whatever, often combined with a lucrative drug trade.


We (the USA) have two out of three. Despite being a wealthy country overall, we do have a substantial percentage in relative poverty. Even if the poor in the USA are not "poor" by Somali standards, they are poor by US standards.... and this creates resentment and a desire to have what others have.
We certainly have gangs, factions and drug trade a-plenty.

We also have 330 million people, and a culture that puts a lot of pressure (hence, stress) on most individuals.... so we have psycho nutjobs now and then. As a percentage of the huge population though, these psycho nutjob rampages are still relatively rare overall.

We have 4x the rate of Canada and England/Wales. Canada is the better example due to geography and culture. Why do we have quadruple rates?
 
Yet you still have rather a lot of guns in circulation compared to most European nations. I have Canadian friends who own small arsenals including AR15's, legally.



Personally I think Canadians are just too polite to murder each other very often. Bad show, just not done eh? :mrgreen:

Yes but to they abide by the magazine restrictions? You are only allowed to have a 5-round magazine. They are greatly restricted in what you can do with a gun here and what you are aloud to own. Only people who the government think are in danger are allowed to carry concealed weapons, I believe only 500 of those permits have ever been issued. Due to these restrictions you can't import much so there is less of a chance of them getting into the hands of criminals if they are not even in the country. Culture also plays a major factor as we are not a group of people that are known to carry guns unless you are Native or Albertan. Quebecois are not exactly known to be tolerant of guns.
 
Last edited:
Goshin
I appreciate your honest post. However, I would say that we are not in the middle. We have not found that place. By your own admission, we have more guns and more carry laws than every before in recent memory. The right has won this issue and they have prevailed. And these sort of things keep happening. And they happen here in the USA more than anywhere else.

Why is that?

I heard somebody on the radio ask a question today and it was food for thought. I will ask it of you and anyone who wants to answer: If a gunman did this to a session of Congress and seventy members were shot - a dozen fatally - would the topic of guns be off the table the way it seems to be whenever these things happen today and for the last few years?

Not a good question because the analogy fails to consider the physical environment of where the legislators meet and the security already in place. It also takes the focus from causation right back to seeking laws as a counter and that is just an eternal anvil.
 
We have 4x the rate of Canada and England/Wales. Canada is the better example due to geography and culture. Why do we have quadruple rates?
We have a differnt demographic than those countries.
 
from tw78640



I have seen nothing of the kind in my state of Michigan. Perhaps things are different where you live. China went to a ban on opium after the Communist revolution and it was tremendously effective and successful. Of course, they were serious which we seem not to be. I am NOT advocating we do what China did - but our efforts are half-assed at best - fully assed at worst.




This latest case purchased the guns LEGALLY.



One could also say that what we have today is not working either.



A few posts ago Goshin reminded us that we have more guns today and more people are open carrying them than at any time in recent memory. So apparently this does not frighten the ones who do these things.




Yes - this one event in Colorado. Or is it one event in Virginia? Or just one event in Texas? Or just a single event in Michigan? I think you get the point.




I have no idea as to any accurate answer that can be proved beyond doubt. However, I see little suport for making guns illegal so its really more of a strawman proposition.



Yes. Because we are not serious. Again, look up the history of opium in China and what happened to it in the 1950's.


Which nobody seems to be advocating so this is yet another strawman.



First, I see not actual real true honest-to-goodness balls-to-the-walls war on drugs that exists in any sense beyond a mere media tag that is hollow and an oxymoron.
Second, nobody is advocating arresting people who are gun owners.

You have quite a long list of what you are NOT proposing. Just what laws would YOU propose that would have kept this latest NUT from buying his collection of guns and ammo?
 
We have 4x the rate of Canada and England/Wales. Canada is the better example due to geography and culture. Why do we have quadruple rates?

Cultural differences, mainly. I went over some of that a few posts ago.
 
We have 4x the rate of Canada and England/Wales. Canada is the better example due to geography and culture. Why do we have quadruple rates?

I think the American culture is rife with the adoration of violence. It's in our love of guns, fascination with military, sports, TV, video games, movies, etc. On top of that we're creating a whole generation of spoiled brats that are digital idiots who can't differentiate fantasy from reality.
 
and why does crazy and evil find its way far more often in the USA than in any other single society?

Does it? Can you really make this generalization?
 
Goshin
I appreciate your honest post. However, I would say that we are not in the middle. We have not found that place. By your own admission, we have more guns and more carry laws than every before in recent memory. The right has won this issue and they have prevailed. And these sort of things keep happening. And they happen here in the USA more than anywhere else.

Why is that?

I heard somebody on the radio ask a question today and it was food for thought. I will ask it of you and anyone who wants to answer: If a gunman did this to a session of Congress and seventy members were shot - a dozen fatally - would the topic of guns be off the table the way it seems to be whenever these things happen today and for the last few years?

It would be off the table, as far as I'm concerned, but no doubt the anti-gunners in the government would make tons of political hay with it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom