• 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.
A most excellent post Connery. Very well said. Thank you for the link and those statistics. They tell a very somber story.
 
TurtleDude said:
explain then while we have a nation awash in dope, crack, blow and speed
Click to expand...

As a self professed 'libertarian' do you not support easing of drug laws and restrictions allowing the individual to make those decisions about usage?
 
Connery said:
I was addressing your attitude toward other posters which, when you are challenged on an issue, is deplorable.

Indeed, individual freedoms and public safety are two bedrock principals interwoven in American life, some feel there is a nexus between the two and are even contingent upon one. For example, “the rate of firearm deaths among children under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined.” (see National Education Association - Health Information Network, Children and Gun Violence).

Further, “each year, more than 20,000 children and youth under age 20 are killed or injured by firearms in the United States. The lethality of guns, as well as their easy accessibility to young people, are key reasons why firearms are the second leading cause of death among young people ages 10 to 19. Only motor vehicle accidents claim more young lives.” (see http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/docs/12_02_ExecSummary.pdf)

Should someone hold the view that public safety and individual freedoms are interconnected they have a every good reason to draw that conclusion and every right to express that position.
Click to expand...

I think it is safe to say that gun control wouldn't have prevented this tradegy. He wanted to kill a high number of people and there are other options he could have pursued.

Unfortunately we live with such a high number of idiots in this country we have to put a warning on a baby stroller to remove the child before folding the stroller. Same thing with guns. You and I were probably taught by fathers and grandfathers to respect a gun and always be aware of the areas around our targets.
I think the role model for some type of gun control is the moron a few years back who let a 8 year old boy shoot a Uzi submachine gun that immediately recoiled upward shooting him in the head. This is the crowd that has to be reminded to remove the child from the stoller.

I have guns myself and want my right to own. How do you allow the law abiding gun intelligent Americans to purchase guns and prevent the morons is the $64,000 questions which I believe nobody has the answer.
 
Phys251 said:
What's starting to worry me is not what kind of impact this incident is going to have on gun laws.

What's starting to worry me is that already, the killer is being described as a very bright person who happened to be a loner and a recluse. Deja vu? Remember, we heard that from the Columbine killers, and that was right down the road from this theater. I really, really hope that that isn't cited as some sort of contributing factor, because we already have enough stigmas in our society as is.
Click to expand...

It will have no impact on gun laws. The right has solidly won this issue for quite a while now. It would one of these horrific events to happen on a weekly basis for a year for any sea change in this dynamic. Either that or somebody shoot 70 members of Congress while they are gathered together. We know that shooting just one doesn't cause any movement.
 
Last edited:
Connery said:
I was addressing your attitude toward other posters which, when you are challenged on an issue, is deplorable.

Indeed, individual freedoms and public safety are two bedrock principals interwoven in American life, some feel there is a nexus between the two and are even contingent upon one. For example, “the rate of firearm deaths among children under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined.” (see National Education Association - Health Information Network, Children and Gun Violence).

Further, “each year, more than 20,000 children and youth under age 20 are killed or injured by firearms in the United States. The lethality of guns, as well as their easy accessibility to young people, are key reasons why firearms are the second leading cause of death among young people ages 10 to 19. Only motor vehicle accidents claim more young lives.” (see http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/docs/12_02_ExecSummary.pdf)

Should someone hold the view that public safety and individual freedoms are interconnected they have a every good reason to draw that conclusion and every right to express that position.
Click to expand...

There is the fallacy that causes discord because it blames "accessibility" which is nothing but a call for new gun laws and we have too many stupid gun laws as it is.
 
Furiounova said:
There is the fallacy that causes discord because it blames "accessibility" which is nothing but a call for new gun laws and we have too many stupid gun laws as it is.
Click to expand...

It may be incorrect premises, but there is no fallacy. It is perfectly possible for two reasonable people to disagree, which is what Conner was showing. It is completely ridiculous for Turtledude to claim persecution!!

For the record, I am for freedom to own modern firearms, whether or not it "costs some lives".
 
haymarket said:
As a self professed 'libertarian' do you not support easing of drug laws and restrictions allowing the individual to make those decisions about usage?
Click to expand...

The easing of drug laws would no doubt do more to lower the murder rate than would more restrictive gun laws.

You see, most of those murders are "gang related". The market for illegal drugs is what is funding gangs, by and large. Eliminate that market, and you have taken a lot of the wind out of the sails of the gangs.

Quite often, authoritarian laws have unintended consequences. Of course, no one decided to wage a "war on drugs" in order to increase violence, but that has been the result.
 
Guns aren't the problem, people are. That this kid was able to legally purchase everything he needed for this killing spree, is not the issue. The issue is, that he wanted to do it in the first place. Looking at gun related deaths is focusing on the SYMPTOM, not the cause. Any decent doc will tell you, that is a mistake. Treating symptoms does not help the patient, in the long run, diagnosing and treating the PROBLEM is. So, the question. WHY did a seemingly normal, albeit quiet and reserved, intelligent, person desire this? Was he pissed off because, here we was, with a degree, and not just ANY degree, a degree in a challenging field, yet working at McDonalds? From my perspective, that's the only thing that even comes close to inducing the rage needed, to produce this result. Or was it simply fame seeking? Was he told, all his life, to do well in school, get good grades, etc, go to college, and he could be president one day? And there he was, doing those things, and working at a fast food restaurant, instead of rich and famous? Was this shoot out his quick ticket to fame, if not fortune?
 
Crosscheck said:
I think it is safe to say that gun control wouldn't have prevented this tradegy. He wanted to kill a high number of people and there are other options he could have pursued.
Click to expand...

You cannot say this for sure.

What did occur was: "Holmes apparently had prepared the attack at the Aurora theater well in advance, receiving multiple deliveries by mail for four months to his home and school and buying thousands of rounds of ammunition on the Internet, Oates said.

"He had a high volume of deliveries," Oates said. "We think this explains how he got his hands on the magazine, ammunition," he said, as well as the rigged explosives in his apartment.

"What we're seeing here is evidence of some calculation and deliberation,For months he ordered material to commit this act."
Police: Colorado suspect planned attack for months
 
KevinKohler said:
Guns aren't the problem, people are. That this kid was able to legally purchase everything he needed for this killing spree, is not the issue. The issue is, that he wanted to do it in the first place. Looking at gun related deaths is focusing on the SYMPTOM, not the cause. Any decent doc will tell you, that is a mistake. Treating symptoms does not help the patient, in the long run, diagnosing and treating the PROBLEM is. So, the question. WHY did a seemingly normal, albeit quiet and reserved, intelligent, person desire this? Was he pissed off because, here we was, with a degree, and not just ANY degree, a degree in a challenging field, yet working at McDonalds? From my perspective, that's the only thing that even comes close to inducing the rage needed, to produce this result. Or was it simply fame seeking? Was he told, all his life, to do well in school, get good grades, etc, go to college, and he could be president one day? And there he was, doing those things, and working at a fast food restaurant, instead of rich and famous? Was this shoot out his quick ticket to fame, if not fortune?
Click to expand...

or was he just an idiopathic total nut case?
 
Dittohead not! said:
or was he just an idiopathic total nut case?
Click to expand...

And if so...then the question must be asked...how to keep people LIKE him, from causing things like this?

Also, if he was simply an idiopathic total nut case...why choose now? Why not snap in school, as seems to be the popular choice with idiopathic nut cases?

The only way to really begin to prevent this sort of ****, it to REALLY understand it, and the people behind it. The better we understand something, the better we can predict something, the better we can prevent something.

Sans guns, this kid would have simply found another way to kill.

Why?
 
I think it's a sad fact that altering gun ownership laws would have evry little impact on the likelihood of this type of incident reoccurring. Draconian gun control laws in the UK haven't prevented spree killings. What is provable is that the UK generally has a fraction of the firearm homicides of the US: 0.1/100,000 vs. 3.37/100,000. It's a clear correlation but is there any evidence that gun control is the causal factor in the disparity? Anyone got the figures?

It is clear the US still has a major problem with gun crime that is disproportionately high in comparison with other western nations. It also appears that due to a fear for the future of 2nd amendment constitutional rights, many of those opposed to gun control ignore the problem or seek to divert attention away from tackling it. Those in favour of gun control also miss the point and see GC as some kind of panacea to societal violence in general, which it's not. It would appear to me that the future of efforts to rein in violent crime in general, and gun crime in particular, would be to focus on motives for such crime, rather than the means and opportunities used. Why are American criminals more likely to use extreme violence than their counter-parts in other western societies?
 
Andalublue said:
I think it's a sad fact that altering gun ownership laws would have evry little impact on the likelihood of this type of incident reoccurring. Draconian gun control laws in the UK haven't prevented spree killings. What is provable is that the UK generally has a fraction of the firearm homicides of the US: 0.1/100,000 vs. 3.37/100,000. It's a clear correlation but is there any evidence that gun control is the causal factor in the disparity? Anyone got the figures?

It is clear the US still has a major problem with gun crime that is disproportionately high in comparison with other western nations. It also appears that due to a fear for the future of 2nd amendment constitutional rights, many of those opposed to gun control ignore the problem or seek to divert attention away from tackling it. Those in favour of gun control also miss the point and see GC as some kind of panacea to societal violence in general, which it's not. It would appear to me that the future of efforts to rein in violent crime in general, and gun crime in particular, would be to focus on motives for such crime, rather than the means and opportunities used. Why are American criminals more likely to use extreme violence than their counter-parts in other western societies?
Click to expand...

Exactly. Deal with the problem, not the symptoms.
 
TurtleDude said:
explain then while we have a nation awash in dope, crack, blow and speed
Click to expand...

Do you think we would have more or less dope, crack, blow and speed if they weren't illegal? No difference you think?
 
As it turns out, the shooter had an NIH grant, which really is a big deal for a first-year doctoral student. Yet he was underperforming and had dropped out, and what we don't know is why. Has something organic been going on in his brain? Did he crack under the pressure or realize that he didn't have the "right stuff"? We just don't know, and FERPA prevents those in the academic-know from talking about it.
 
nota bene said:
As it turns out, the shooter had an NIH grant, which really is a big deal for a first-year doctoral student. Yet he was underperforming and had dropped out, and what we don't know is why. Has something organic been going on in his brain? Did he crack under the pressure or realize that he didn't have the "right stuff"? We just don't know, and FERPA prevents those in the academic-know from talking about it.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't someone wave their FERPA rights once they grab some guns, stroll into a movie theater, and shoot a bunch of people? Seems to me like they would...but likely, we're just not gonna know till well after the case is settled...and then, maybe a year or 2 from now, we'll get some sort of interview with the kid (which is exactly what he likely wants), in which he explains himself.


Maybe.
 
AdamT said:
Do you think we would have more or less dope, crack, blow and speed if they weren't illegal? No difference you think?
Click to expand...

I think we would have a radical shift in the TYPES of drugs used....For instance, gone, would be crap like meth, once LSD goes back on the market. I think we would have more designer drugs, drugs made by professionals, with professional results, rather than what we got now.

Not saying society would be any better off or not...no way to know. History tells me that opium almost destroyed China, that when given the choice, people would rather escape reality, than live in it. Which is it's own sort of bad.
 
Connery said:
You cannot say this for sure.

What did occur was: "Holmes apparently had prepared the attack at the Aurora theater well in advance, receiving multiple deliveries by mail for four months to his home and school and buying thousands of rounds of ammunition on the Internet, Oates said.

"He had a high volume of deliveries," Oates said. "We think this explains how he got his hands on the magazine, ammunition," he said, as well as the rigged explosives in his apartment.

"What we're seeing here is evidence of some calculation and deliberation,For months he ordered material to commit this act."
Police: Colorado suspect planned attack for months
Click to expand...

Yes, there are so many options other than gunfire he could have chose.

In a theater there are usually only 4 doors and no windows. Blocked the two exit doors from the outside. Make a time release explosion of Ricin easily made from castor beans then place an attachment to prevent opening of the two entrance doors to the theater.

The only hope in defeating cowards like this is for the public to be forever aware of their surroundings and actions by people whose actions seem inappropriate.
 
Dezaad said:
It may be incorrect premises, but there is no fallacy. It is perfectly possible for two reasonable people to disagree, which is what Conner was showing. It is completely ridiculous for Turtledude to claim persecution!!

For the record, I am for freedom to own modern firearms, whether or not it "costs some lives".
Click to expand...

It is a fallacy because it presumes accessibility is a "key" factor and I guarantee if I could snap my fingers and make guns disappear, with no memory of them at all, people would still find tools to kill each other with on both individual and mass levels.
 
Crosscheck said:
Yes, there are so many options other than gunfire he could have chose.

In a theater there are usually only 4 doors and no windows. Blocked the two exit doors from the outside. Make a time release explosion of Ricin easily made from castor beans then place an attachment to prevent opening of the two entrance doors to the theater.

The only hope in defeating cowards like this is for the public to be forever aware of their surroundings and actions by people whose actions seem inappropriate.
Click to expand...

It is impossible to stop people like him. absolutely impossible. The best we can do is seek comprehension on the causes and try to implement inhibitors.
 
AdamT said:
Do you think we would have more or less dope, crack, blow and speed if they weren't illegal? No difference you think?
Click to expand...

I think we'd have more, because right now the only people getting dope, crack, blow, and speed are those who have no issue with breaking the law. If they were legal, those who don't wish to break the law would then have access to them.
 
Crosscheck said:
Yes, there are so many options other than gunfire he could have chose.
Click to expand...

We are speaking about Holmes exclusively and no one can say for sure whether he would have chosen any other options.
 
Connery said:
I was addressing your attitude toward other posters which, when you are challenged on an issue, is deplorable.

Indeed, individual freedoms and public safety are two bedrock principals interwoven in American life, some feel there is a nexus between the two and are even contingent upon one. For example, “the rate of firearm deaths among children under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined.” (see National Education Association - Health Information Network, Children and Gun Violence).

Further, “each year, more than 20,000 children and youth under age 20 are killed or injured by firearms in the United States. The lethality of guns, as well as their easy accessibility to young people, are key reasons why firearms are the second leading cause of death among young people ages 10 to 19. Only motor vehicle accidents claim more young lives.” (see http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/docs/12_02_ExecSummary.pdf)

Should someone hold the view that public safety and individual freedoms are interconnected they have a every good reason to draw that conclusion and every right to express that position.
Click to expand...

Furiounova said:
There is the fallacy that causes discord because it blames "accessibility" which is nothing but a call for new gun laws and we have too many stupid gun laws as it is.
Click to expand...

Furiounova said:
It is a fallacy because it presumes accessibility is a "key" factor and I guarantee if I could snap my fingers and make guns disappear, with no memory of them at all, people would still find tools to kill each other with on both individual and mass levels.
Click to expand...



My post, which for which you base your opinion, speaks only to "children and youth under age 20 are killed or injured by firearms in the United States". It does not address other means and was not intended to. My post and it's content was to support those that held the view there was a nexus between individual freedoms and public safety as a valid viewpoint.
 
Connery said:
We are speaking about Holmes exclusively and no one can say for sure whether he would have chosen any other options.
Click to expand...


True. The guns gave him the flair to dress up in his silly costume and watch the killing live as opposed to be in the parking lot pushing the signal to ignite a bomb.
 
Zyphlin said:
I think we'd have more, because right now the only people getting dope, crack, blow, and speed are those who have no issue with breaking the law. If they were legal, those who don't wish to break the law would then have access to them.
Click to expand...

I agree. Legalizing such drugs would only increase usage... increase the problems that arise from usage .... and increase the misery that drugs can bring.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom