At Least 14 Killed in Colo. Movie Shooting

Ehm, no - the underlying cause is most defintely not a medical one. Where did you come up with this?

It's called science.

It's a combination of genetic pre-disposition and environmental factors - and no one knows exactly what parts are most responsible. But since we can't change genes - we have to focus on what we CAN change.

You're over simplifying it. It is primarily a medical issue. Certainly environment can influence it, and should be addressed as it is possible, but the primary driver is the medical side, otherwise we'd all be crazy.

You can't medicate people out of developing a mental illness - because you have to spot it first at which point it's often already developed or unpreventable - and medication is never a solution, simply a way to make the problem less severe.

Again, you make no sense. Medication is the best solution we have. Its not a cure, but in many cases it makes the illness controllable for the individual.

It's not about going from happy about life to pulling a gun - it's about how hard it is to detect the issues before they provoke a serious problem - and you're making it sound like it's something we can enforce. It's ridiculous. The VAST majority of people who suffer from issues like this - will never "snap" in a way that will kill other people. They'll just buckle and have a rough time for a while.

You tried to make that exact point, which is why I called you on the bullshit that it is. We certainly can do a better job of observing and combating mental illness before it gets too far though.

It's incredibly hard to detect - because people are generally very, very good at putting up appearances. It's practically impossible to come up with some way to detect it - and who would be responsible? Are we going to send out detectives for each and every individual or what? Yeah, it's ridiculous.

Unless someone is a hermit, the people around them will see changes. They may ignore them, but they see them. And that doesn't even get into the problem of people that have actually been diagnosed with a mental illness, but then refuse to stay on their medication.

How would you get trained professionals to monitor everyone?

No system will be perfect, but given the explosion of people walking around with untreated mental illness, we obviously did a better job of it in the past.


Almost none of them, that's right.

No, most if not all can be predicted if people just observe and the afflicted are given (and will accept) help.

Nice - the meds that will magically cure people and prevent them from breaking down after we've detected they will eventually break down. It would be like Minority Report for the mentally ill.

No one said anything about a cure, I said treat. Two different things. There is no good solution for mental illness.

You did what? Successfully predict breakdowns and prevented them?
Try reading in context. Prior to the 70's we had forcible admittance to mental hospitals.

Yes, you're supporting murder by supporting your rights in this case. Probably not fully consciously - but ignorance is the greatest of all human problems. It's not about assigning blame - and I'm not blaming you for not being smarter than you are. But it's not going to change that your ignorance is killing people.

Repeating the same BS doesn't make it true. I am not supporting murder by supporting my rights any more than someone that supports owning kitchen knives is supporting murder. The problem is the ignorance by people like yourself that think simply banning guns is miraculously stop people from killing each other.

Don't think of it as giving up your rights - but changing the law so that everyone is safer. Rights should be changed when they're a danger to society - or don't you think so?

Again, put adequate protections in place so that I don't need a firearm for self defense or defense against tyranny and I will gladly give up my right to bear arms. I won't hold my breath.

As evidenced where? I'm talking about civilised western countries.

The link about that I quoted. Violent crime rates are higher in the UK (which I am pretty sure is considered a civilized western country but I haven't been there in a few years) than in the US.

You're exactly right about poverty, though. Poverty is a part of our societal sickness - and inequality is one of the greatest factors in people developing mental health problems. But I suppose you want to medicate people out of poverty or not getting all they were promised by Hollywood or fairy tale parents?

Wow, strawman much? Where is your evidence that 'inequality is one of the greatest factors in people developing mental health problems'? And I'm not talking about just mild depression, I'm talking about serious mental health issues.

I'm all for fixing the poverty problem, but again, people have to want to make their lives better. It's a vicious cycle (and most people in poverty don't have 'fairy tale parents', they have parents that are at best absent or at worst destructive). Fundamentally it really comes down to a culture issue.

You support the killing of innocent people by holding on to a right that's a direct cause for innocent people being killed - without giving you any advantage that's tangible or detectable.

Just because you refuse to acknowledge the benefits of gun ownership does not make them nonexistant. I support the right to bear arms. I do not support the killing of innocent people no matter how desperate you are to make that connection.

Are you a politician by chance? Because that's the exact type of connection a politician would try to make to advance an agenda.

You can have a gun and you can defend yourself against a gun. Do you think that's safer than not having a gun and defending yourself against people without guns?

Prove to me that a criminal isn't going to get a gun. Not to mention that a gun is a great equalizer. It doesn't matter if the person is twice the size of me (not likely to be fair) or there are more of them than me.

There's a reason most of the rest of the civilised world has all but banned them.

Good for you. Stay out of my country.

If you're worred about criminals getting their hands on a gun - then realise that the problem is much, much more severe because of the easy access to them. So, you're supporting a LOT more violent and gun related crimes because of your selfish ancient concept of self-defense.

Not at all. I support strict, though not overly burdensome, control of handgun and semi-automatic gun sales. The fact remains that criminals will still get their hands on guns even if you ban legal ownership of them.

There is nothing ancient about my concept of self-defense. If anything, its extremely modern. You don't see me carrying around a broadsword.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,355
Location
Austin, TX
Interesting how y'all are so quick to dismiss the perfect case study of Mexico. Strict gun control laws that prevent the general citizenry from legally owning firearms, and yet the country is still a warzone. How could that possibly happen? Y'all have zero evidence of practical application of your pie-in-the-sky utopian bullshit (even over there in the Lands of Enlightenment). I've got a nation that's done EXACTLY what you propose as a solution. And your solution failed dismally. There's simply no way in hell to deny it, and your attempts to dodge it demonstrate that you're not going to let petty facts get in the way of your crusade.

More power to ya. When you get some actual facts, let me know. Until then, y'all should be a little more respectful of bn for his willingness to go over and over the same nonsense and ridiculous accusations when he's the only one that has an actual case study on his side. Not to mention your utter ignorance of cultural differences. It's clear y'all think you can apply legal boundries to people that don't accept legal boundaries, and that's quite simply the beginning and end of any rational thought on the matter.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,557
Location
Illinois, USA
I'm also interested in what you guys think of the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s. Because all the nifty "assault weapons" were HIGHLY available in america during that time period. Many could be mail ordered directly to you home for as little as 1/4 the price they go for today (inflation factored in). Why isn't this period of the laxest gun laws in US history marked with constant and terrible bloodshed in the streets?

Is it maybe because the guns aren't the problem? Is it maybe because we are? Treating the symptoms while ignoring the cause can't work out in the end for us.
 
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
615
The Viet-Cong didn't have access to helicopters, submarines, missiles, carriers, destroyers, etc.
The Syrian rebels don't have access to heavy artillery, air power, etc.
Hell, the Taliban doesn't have access that stuff either, yet we haven't been able to completely defeat them in over 10 years of warfare.

The US army is pretty much invincible against other conventional armies, but that's it.

As long as the US army is lead by a democracy, yes. However, the US army would squash said cases if some admiral became a tyrant and decided to ignore civilian casualties and simply wipe them all out, and that's the scenario you'd be facing if you're ever forced to take up arms against your own military. Taliban and what not do not pose an actual threat to the US army, and the US army would have zero problems taking complete control over any region defended by civilians, be it in Afghanistan or New York. You can't fight tanks with automatic rifles.

Bottom line: If the US government decided to pull a Saddam Hussein, and the military actually didn't defect (which they probably would have), your population would be forced into submission by the military regardless of whether or not you had access to automatic rifles.

Interesting how y'all are so quick to dismiss the perfect case study of Mexico. Strict gun control laws that prevent the general citizenry from legally owning firearms, and yet the country is still a warzone. How could that possibly happen? Y'all have zero evidence of practical application of your pie-in-the-sky utopian bullshit (even over there in the Lands of Enlightenment). I've got a nation that's done EXACTLY what you propose as a solution. And your solution failed dismally. There's simply no way in hell to deny it, and your attempts to dodge it demonstrate that you're not going to let petty facts get in the way of your crusade.

More power to ya. When you get some actual facts, let me know. Until then, y'all should be a little more respectful of bn for his willingness to go over and over the same nonsense and ridiculous accusations when he's the only one that has an actual case study on his side. Not to mention your utter ignorance of cultural differences. It's clear y'all think you can apply legal boundries to people that don't accept legal boundaries, and that's quite simply the beginning and end of any rational thought on the matter.

Because the entire country is corrupt, so such weapons are still widely available? If you want examples of countries where strict gun control works, just dig up a bunch of nations in Europe. Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Austria etc. Basically anyone near the bottom of the homicide rates list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Strict gun control doesn't always mean low murder rates - education, poverty, corruption and so on also play an important part. However, all nations with low murder rates have strict gun control. Just check the list. There's no such thing as liberal gun laws, but low murder rates.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
7,586
Location
Bergen
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
1,769
Location
Minnesota, USA
Here in Europe, our (current) culture and mentality is that of living in a society without access to firearms and to us it does come across as "madness" and "gun crazyness" when we hear some of the most vocal defenders of guns in the U.S.

I assume that gun ownership is deeply imbedded in the culture of certain parts of the U.S. so I cannot blame them for wanting to defend their way of life. And let's be honest, being told by some foreigners how to live and being accused of ignorance and stupidity, or worse supporters of murder, isn't exactly making someone receptive but instead more defensive.

Personally, my feeling is that the violence in U.S. isn't the result of the laws regarding firearms but more related to the problems in society. It is the richest country in the world yet it has, compared to other Western countries, a lot of poverty and social insecurity.

My understanding is that Canada is the "social" version of the U.S. and isn't Canada supposed to have a lot of gun ownership as well among the populace but without the same level of violence as its Southern neighbour?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 22, 2011
Messages
613
Location
Madrid, Spain
As long as the US army is lead by a democracy, yes. However, the US army would squash said cases if some admiral became a tyrant and decided to ignore civilian casualties and simply wipe them all out, and that's the scenario you'd be facing if you're ever forced to take up arms against your own military. Taliban and what not do not pose an actual threat to the US army, and the US army would have zero problems taking complete control over any region defended by civilians, be it in Afghanistan or New York. You can't fight tanks with automatic rifles.

Bottom line: If the US government decided to pull a Saddam Hussein, and the military actually didn't defect (which they probably would have), your population would be forced into submission by the military regardless of whether or not you had access to automatic rifles.

I have no doubt that the American military would win..... at first.

Because the entire country is corrupt, so such weapons are still widely available? If you want examples of countries where strict gun control works, just dig up a bunch of nations in Europe. Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Austria etc. Basically anyone near the bottom of the homicide rates list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

All nations with low murder rates have strict gun control. There's your proof.

That's not proof, that's spurious correlation. You completely ignore any and all other reasons for lower murder rates.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,355
Location
Austin, TX
My understanding is that Canada is the "social" version of the U.S. and isn't Canada supposed to have a lot of gun ownership as well among the populace but without the same level of violence as its Southern neighbour?

The US has a lot of problems that Canada doesn't (such as the legacy of racial discrimination and the effects it has on poverty in inner cities) and a significantly larger population, plus Canada has pretty strict gun control laws for handguns and anything semi or automatic. It's not an apples to apples comparison.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,355
Location
Austin, TX
That's not proof, that's spurious correlation. You completely ignore any and all other reasons for lower murder rates.

Yes, I know, I was updating my post when you were typing yours. I still there's a connection though, as the entire bottom of the list has strict gun control. I just don't think such low homicide rates are possible to achieve as long as there's guns everywhere.

Anyway, I'm far more concerned with automatic weapons than regular guns. Guys like Holmes and Breivik will always exist, no matter how hard we try to avoid it, but at least they'd end up shooting 7 people instead of 70 if all they could get their hands on were regular fire arms.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
7,586
Location
Bergen
Anyway, I'm far more concerned with automatic weapons than regular guns. Guys like Holmes and Breivik will always exist, no matter how hard we try to avoid it, but at least they'd end up shooting 7 people instead of 70 if all they could get their hands on were regular fire arms.

I agree with you about the access to automatic weapons, as they are "overkill" for simple self defense.

However, if someone wants to create a massacre and does not have an automatic weapon at hand, they will simply find another way if they are determined. Explosives or toxic gases in a crowded area would suffice as well.
 
Joined
Jun 22, 2011
Messages
613
Location
Madrid, Spain
Strict gun control doesn't always mean low murder rates - education, poverty, corruption and so on also play an important part. However, all nations with low murder rates have strict gun control. Just check the list. There's no such thing as liberal gun laws, but low murder rates.

Look at the numbers by state in the US (States are generally much more comparable in size and population to most nations). Without exception, every state with a high murder rate also has strict gun control laws. Every state with lax gun control laws has a lower murder rate.

Something else is clearly afoot. But no one wants to see or admit it.
 
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
615
Anyway, I'm far more concerned with automatic weapons than regular guns. Guys like Holmes and Breivik will always exist, no matter how hard we try to avoid it, but at least they'd end up shooting 7 people instead of 70 if all they could get their hands on were regular fire arms.

Holmes didn't have an automatic weapon. Just for those who think automatic weapons are found everywhere and easily accessible here's a link to a popular site in the US that sells them. Note the prices:
http://www.impactguns.com/machine-guns.aspx
 
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
615
Holmes didn't have an automatic weapon. Just for those who think automatic weapons are found everywhere and easily accessible here's a link to a popular site in the US that sells them. Note the prices:
http://www.impactguns.com/machine-guns.aspx

I started out saying automatic and half automatic, by which I meant semi automatic. I just left out saying half/semi automatic most of the time because it made the sentences a bit of a slog. AR-15 is definitely a military weapon though, even if it's a "civilian version of the M16".

I've been in the military myself, those weapons are too powerful for hunting or self defense, unless you're doing it Rambo style. Even using such a weapon properly requires months of training, which is the only reason Holmes "only" killed 12. With training it would've been many times that number, no doubt.

I fear the day someone trained in such weaponry goes berserk. The death toll will be immense.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
7,586
Location
Bergen
Interesting how y'all are so quick to dismiss the perfect case study of Mexico. Strict gun control laws that prevent the general citizenry from legally owning firearms, and yet the country is still a warzone. How could that possibly happen? Y'all have zero evidence of practical application of your pie-in-the-sky utopian bullshit (even over there in the Lands of Enlightenment). I've got a nation that's done EXACTLY what you propose as a solution. And your solution failed dismally. There's simply no way in hell to deny it, and your attempts to dodge it demonstrate that you're not going to let petty facts get in the way of your crusade.

More power to ya. When you get some actual facts, let me know. Until then, y'all should be a little more respectful of bn for his willingness to go over and over the same nonsense and ridiculous accusations when he's the only one that has an actual case study on his side. Not to mention your utter ignorance of cultural differences. It's clear y'all think you can apply legal boundries to people that don't accept legal boundaries, and that's quite simply the beginning and end of any rational thought on the matter.

The problem all of you have is that you only see one solution to the problem. Banning guns is not effective in Mexico, just like it wouldn't be in any corrupt country where the officials are bought for a stay in a nice hotel... If there is no one to actually enforce the law, there's not much point in having the law. So like DA said, he hopes the US is different and that most people would enforce that law. In Mexico, all I need to do to get a gun is go to a gun store and give the guy 500 bucks above the price and he'd give me the gun. It's really not so hard. In Belgium, you give the guy 500 euros above the price range and he'll take your picture and send it to the police. :D See the difference of why Mexico is not a perfect example.
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
9,210
Location
Manchester, United Kingdom
I'm also interested in what you guys think of the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s. Because all the nifty "assault weapons" were HIGHLY available in america during that time period. Many could be mail ordered directly to you home for as little as 1/4 the price they go for today (inflation factored in). Why isn't this period of the laxest gun laws in US history marked with constant and terrible bloodshed in the streets?

Is it maybe because the guns aren't the problem? Is it maybe because we are? Treating the symptoms while ignoring the cause can't work out in the end for us.

Are you kidding ? 30's were the times of the gangland wars, mafia wars and so on ... No gun crime ?
40's, there was a war going on with most people conscripted. 60's and 70's was the time of the hippies :) They only wanted drugs...
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
9,210
Location
Manchester, United Kingdom
Once the tougher gun laws go into effect, it takes a LONG time for the market to desaturate especially if people saw it coming and hoarded firearms…
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
15,682
Location
Studio City, CA
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
9,210
Location
Manchester, United Kingdom
Back
Top Bottom