Dark Knight movie theater shooting in Denver

[sonofhal]

technically it's true that without guns there would be no gun violence, but that's the same as saying there would be no vehicle related deaths if people didn't have cars.

Is there big spates of vehicle related violence?

What is your next argument? If we had no hearts there would be no heart attacks?

[xuclarockerx]

Now accepting proposals for how we rid the world of all guns

[Dogvolta]

Of all of the tragic news of deaths, child deaths, massacres over seas, war, etc. for some damned odd reason this news really disturbed me when I heard about it at work early this morning.

[nathanfairchild]

It's not technically true. It's true. Without guns, it's not possible to have a mass shooting.

obviously this is true. you could say without planes there would be no plane crashes.

There would still be vehicle related deaths. Cars are not the only vehicle. Cars are also designed to do something besides kill.

My point is that if you take something away then of course it won't lead to anything that could be caused by the object in question.

Whether they are used for another purpose, a gun's primary purpose is to end something's life.

I sort of agree with this but the main reason that people own guns is for defense (excluding hunters), not harming other people.

This shouldn't be an arguable point, and it's pretty sad that it is.

agreed.

still, one persons actions shouldn't be used to condemn everyone else's. the majority of licensed gun owners are very responsible. i don't hate all muslims because terrorists twist the teachings of Islam to harm people. No matter what the circumstance there will always be people that are fucked in the head and do horrible things such as this.

[nathanfairchild]

Is there big spates of vehicle related violence?

What is your next argument? If we had no hearts there would be no heart attacks?

kind of my point. it's an obvious thing to say that without ____ there would be no ____.

[bmack86]

still, one persons actions shouldn't be used to condemn everyone else's. the majority of licensed gun owners are very responsible. i don't hate all muslims because terrorists twist the teachings of Islam to harm people. No matter what the circumstance there will always be people that are fucked in the head and do horrible things such as this.

No, but things like this should (and never do) lead to a more level-headed and logical discussion of gun control laws. I can think of no conceivable purpose why any private individual would ever need an AR-15, be it for personal protection or hunting. That weapon is not designed for small-scale individual protection, and it'd leave your potential dinner riddled with holes and lead. It is a killing machine, and it should not be privately held. Never mind the paranoia that goes into the thought that someone would have to keep a gun in their house "for protection."

[marooko]

Now accepting proposals for how we rid the world of all guns

Hugs.

[nathanfairchild]

No, but things like this should (and never do) lead to a more level-headed and logical discussion of gun control laws. I can think of no conceivable purpose why any private individual would ever need an AR-15, be it for personal protection or hunting. That weapon is not designed for small-scale individual protection, and it'd leave your potential dinner riddled with holes and lead. It is a killing machine, and it should not be privately held. Never mind the paranoia that goes into the thought that someone would have to keep a gun in their house "for protection."

Well I completely agree with this. I've never understood private citizens needing combat rifles. I was thinking about handguns primarily.

[Somewhat Damaged]

Of all of the tragic news of deaths, child deaths, massacres over seas, war, etc. for some damned odd reason this news really disturbed me when I heard about it at work early this morning.

The guy who sits next to me is due to see The Dark Knight Rises tonight & is paranoid that something's going to happen at his screening, so your feelings aren't uncommon. It's due to the randomness and relatability to the situation; could have just as well been the showing anyone else was attending. No way to really prepare oneself for or take measures to avoid the situation because of how unpredictable it is.

I expect security at movie theaters around the country is going to be heightened this weekend. At a former job, we had guards assigned to a theater in an urban part of town and when, say, the Notorious B.I.G. biopic was released, they upped their request of guard coverage from 1 on Friday night, 12p-12a Saturday, and 5p-12a Sunday to 2 guards 24 hours that entire weekend. Kind of overblown, if you ask me, but the guards appreciated the shifts.

[RedHotSgtPeppers]

Also, the logic against taking away people's legal rights to own guns makes people defenseless in their own homes. People that want to get guns to senselessly kill people are going to find a way to get them and use them against people they know won't have guns.

Drugs are illegal, people still have drugs. Alcohol was illegal during the Prohibition, people still drank. Just because the government takes away something dangerous does not mean that it's going to stop, it just makes it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to acquire it; just because there are some crazy people out there who kill people with guns does not mean that guns should be taken away from everyone.

[amyzzz]

I was at a theatre last night to see a 7pm showing Brave with my children, and this resonates with me as well. There were midnight screenings of Batman there, and the lines were forming as we left the theatre.

[citizenerased]

At least ban civilians from owning damn assault rifles. Absolutely no reason we need them.

[amyzzz]

Having and using the guns seems a bit easier and more effective than making and bringing pipe bombs to the theatre.

[bmack86]

Not absurd. A shooting cannot happen without guns. A pipe bomb attack is a different thing. Similar result? Maybe. But it's not this instance. Acknowledged, there are other ways to kill people, but that's not what happened here.

And why can't it be both a mental health problem and a gun control problem? Isn't it a problem that people with serious mental health issues can get ahold of an automatic firearm? While we don't know how he got the gun, it's safe to say that, if this is a mental health issue (likely) that he should not have had the gun in the first place.

[casey]

With a clean criminal record and no ties to terrorism, he would have been able to obtain at least the handguns just like anyone else. Do we need stricter gun laws? Probably, however I don't think it would have stopped this guy.

[Miroir Noir]

[RedHotSgtPeppers]

Not absurd. A shooting cannot happen without guns. A pipe bomb attack is a different thing. Similar result? Maybe. But it's not this instance. Acknowledged, there are other ways to kill people, but that's not what happened here.

And why can't it be both a mental health problem and a gun control problem? Isn't it a problem that people with serious mental health issues can get ahold of an automatic firearm? While we don't know how he got the gun, it's safe to say that, if this is a mental health issue (likely) that he should not have had the gun in the first place.

Let's dissect this for a second here.
If a crazy person wants a gun, he'll get a gun. An arms dealer isn't going to require a mental health screening before he sells a gun to someone. Sane people who want to legally own a gun can do so through the proper channels. If someone is going to massacre a bunch of people with a gun, he's going to find a way to do so whether guns are illegal or not. Even IF every single gun in the United States were somehow collected up and destroyed, people would STILL find a way to bring them into this country and kill people.

I'm not saying it isn't tragic or a problem that a crazy person got ahold of an automatic and that he shouldn't have gotten one; it doesn't give allowance to the government to take away a basic right just because a mentally unstable person acquired one.

[amyzzz]

If a crazy person wants a gun and there are more strict gun laws, it will take him longer to get a gun, if at all.

[bmack86]

Jesus christ. Why is it that whenever gun CONTROL is discussed, peoples' responses are always "DURKA THEY WANNA TAKE THE GUNS AWAY!!!!"

If there were stricter regulations on the purchase and transfer of weapons, yes, he might still be able to get one. But it would be MUCH harder. And if we just required registration of every weapon, then there would be some accountability for weapons getting out there. Look at the comic up there: guns are not going to be taken away. There are too many lobbyists ensuring that. Why can't we nevertheless have stricter control of them? As it stands right now, in many states you can transfer title to a gun just by reselling it, but in order to transfer title to a car you have to re-register the vehicle in the new owner's name. Why isn't a similar requirement in place for something that is, at very least, equally dangerous?

[marooko]

Alcohol was illegal during the Prohibition, people still drank.

So if they ban guns all we have to do is kill enough people to get them back?

Somewhat, me suggesting they were illegal because there was no mention is just as stupid as you assuming that's what I was suggesting. I wasn't suggesting that they were illegal because it wasn't mentioned, but I am willing to put money on them being illegal. Sure, that may not be their first priority, but it will eventually come out.

And yeah, there is no legitimate reason for the people to have fully automatic weapons or assault style rifles, which can easily be manipulated.

[Mr. Fuzz]

Only crazy people own guns.

[PlayaDelWes]

With nearly 300 million guns currently held by private civilians, the horse has left the barn.

[ThatGirl]

And yeah, there is no legitimate reason for the people to have fully automatic weapons or assault style rifles, which can easily be manipulated.

The only purpose they serve is a murderous one, no good reason for them to even exist.

[RedHotSgtPeppers]

So if they ban guns all we have to do is kill enough people to get them back?

Somewhat, me suggesting they were illegal because there was no mention is just as stupid as you assuming that's what I was suggesting. I wasn't suggesting that they were illegal because it wasn't mentioned, but I am willing to put money on them being illegal. Sure, that may not be their first priority, but it will eventually come out.

And yeah, there is no legitimate reason for the people to have fully automatic weapons or assault style rifles, which can easily be manipulated.

I wasn't making that point with alcohol. My point was that the government deemed alcohol to be overly dangerous and destructive to the point to doing away with it, yet people still found a way to acquire alcohol. Just because you try to take something away doesn't mean the problems associated with it are going to go away too.

[RedHotSgtPeppers]

The only purpose they serve is a murderous one, no good reason for them to even exist.

I have to say, they are fun as shit to shoot.

EDIT: to shoot at stationary paper targets or the like, not at people.

[Miroir Noir]

I always patiently wait for gun rights proponents to join liberals in requesting increased funding for Medicaid and mental health programs, especially for mental health care and intervention in school-aged children. Just like I always patiently wait for pro life advocates to join liberals in requesting additional child care, nutrition, and health care funding.

[RedHotSgtPeppers]

WHY CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG

[bmack86]

With nearly 300 million guns currently held by private civilians, the horse has left the barn.

But defeatism is a sad approach to a real problem. Surely there are ways we can work with, rather than against, sensible gun owners to create greater oversight and regulation of weaponry. They are out there and aren't going away, so turning a blind eye or saying, "well, what can we do," doesn't make anything better.

[marooko]

I wasn't making that point with alcohol.

I know you weren't, I was just being an ass. Also pointing out that banning guns will do absolutely nothing to solve the problem, as it did nothing with alcohol. Gun control and education, and much stricter laws for offenders.

[PlayaDelWes]

But defeatism is a sad approach to a real problem. Surely there are ways we can work with, rather than against, sensible gun owners to create greater oversight and regulation of weaponry. They are out there and aren't going away, so turning a blind eye or saying, "well, what can we do," doesn't make anything better.

How can you not feel defeated? My first reaction was to cut out all new gun production. Let's say we do. Then what? Maybe it's the right thing to do with a very long outlook (25+ years), but what do you do with all those outstanding firearms? Don’t quote me on exact numbers, but I think amnesty programs have yielded <1 Million units. I see no reason for this country to produce so many guns and for so many people to have them, but that’s the reality.