At Least 14 Killed in Colo. Movie Shooting

[Asdraguuhl]

In much of the 'civilized' world we are barely a generation away from brutal dictatorships (Spain comes to mind).

??????

Care to elaborate?

 

[blatantninja]

??????

Care to elaborate?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Franco

 

[Asdraguuhl]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Franco

Well, it took a civil war from 1936 to 1939, destroying the country, and right after that there was this little quite insignificant event that overshadows Spain in terms of totalitarian regimes, so I was a little surprised you used Spain as an example.

 

[Maylander]

What I don't understand is this: Why is it legal to own automatic or half automatic weapons in many countries, Norway included? Both Breivik and Holmes used perfectly legal weapons, but what is the purpose of such weapons being legal? In Norway, they fall into the category "hunting weapons", which is legal if you have a license to own such weapons.

Hunting weapons? Really? Who goes hunting with a half automatic weapon? Rambo style hunting? Filling a moose with lead? Do you really need to be able to put 200 bullets into a deer? It's absolute nonsense.

A simply gun will suffice for self defense, and a rifle will suffice for hunting. A simple gun or rifle can't shoot 70+ people in a short amount of time though.

I really can't find a good reason for anyone to own automatic weapons unless they're fighting a war or going on a killing spree, hence such weapons should only be accessible to the military.

 

[BillSeurer]

The US may have more gun violence, but seems much of Europe has worse overall violence.

You have to be careful about this. In the US the FBI sets the standard for what constitutes a "violent" crime. Does the Home Office in the UK use the same definition?

In the US a violent crime is one of: Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, Forcible rape, Robbery, and Aggravated assault. The UK includes things like child abandonment and neglect, "Public fear, alaram, or distress", and various forms of harassment as violent crimes which I doubt are included in the US numbers.

And then even if the Home Office used the same general definitions is a "Robbery" the same thing?

So if we forge ahead anyway and use the FBI's stats on violent crime the US rate was 403.6 per 100,000 people in 2010 (most recent year with a full report).

The Home Office stats are a bit trickier as they do not report rates. It shows 821,939 "Total violence against the person offences". For some reason they leave Scotland and Northern Ireland out of this report. The population of England+Wales in 2010 was 53.2 million which would put the rate at 1544 per 100,000.

If you exclude the above rather dubious "violent" crimes the rate might be as much as halved.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/public...rch/historical-crime-data/rec-crime-2003-2012
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/npp/n...b-2010-based-principal-population-projections

 

[blatantninja]

Well, it took a civil war from 1936 to 1939, destroying the country, and right after that there was this little quite insignificant event that overshadows Spain in terms of totalitarian regimes, so I was a little surprised you used Spain as an example.

I used Spain as an example because it is a western European democracy that was very recently a totalitarian dictatorship. How it got there as important as its recent status as such.

 

[blatantninja]

I really can't find a good reason for anyone to own automatic weapons unless they're fighting a war or going on a killing spree, hence such weapons should only be accessible to the military.

I don't want to live in a country where the only people with access to automatic weapons is the military. You must have far more faith in the government than I do.

 

[Asdraguuhl]

I used Spain as an example because it is a western European democracy that was very recently a totalitarian dictatorship. How it got there as important as its recent status as such.

I think that I may have misinterpreted your phrase. You were then referring to relatively new democracies whereas I understood that you were referring to democracies that were a generation away from BECOMING a dictatorship.

OK, slight misundertanding .

 

[blatantninja]

I think that I may have misinterpreted your phrase. You were then referring to relatively new democracies whereas I understood that you were referring to democracies that were a generation away from BECOMING a dictatorship.

OK, slight misundertanding .

Well given the economic climate we may be less than a generation away! Let's hope not though.

 

[Pladio]

I don't want to live in a country where the only people with access to automatic weapons is the military. You must have far more faith in the government than I do.

Well, not in your government which spends 700 billion a year on the military, but the Belgian army is so puny a guerilla force could overpower every base in Belgium in two weeks time

So it's not faith in the military, but faith they can't harm too many people.
The US army is scary, but that's because civilians in the US want a big scary army to fight off everyone who is against them in the entire world.

Now they also want scary civilians with automatic weapons, that's their problem. (i.e. your problem)

I hate it now in the UK that I see patrolmen with M4's. I think that's way too much.
It's too dangerous to carry those around in densely populated areas. While their orders are probably to keep them to single shot, it's still too much. Also way more dangerous if someone actually manages to overpower a police officer carrying one of those. Instead of 8 people getting shot from a pistol, they now have 30 bullets to kill people with.

 

[Maylander]

I don't want to live in a country where the only people with access to automatic weapons is the military. You must have far more faith in the government than I do.

What does that have to do with anything? They're the only ones with access to attack helicopters, submarines, missiles, carriers, destroyers, and so on and so forth, and you're drawing the line at.. automatic weapons? Really? Somehow that's going to.. what? Keep the military in line? Prevent them from being corrupt?

Again, I fail to see why civilians should have access to automatic weapons. There's nothing they can hope to achieve by it. I just can't find a single, realistic scenario where a weapon like that might be useful.

If someone could present a specific scenario, I'd be very interested in hearing their arguments.

 

[Pladio]

I'm with Maylander on this one. Especially since it's kind of funny too

Military : Gunships, Bombers, Frigates, Destroyers, Carriers, Tanks, Drones,...
Civilians : Knives, Rifles, Guns, Automatic Weaponry.

Ready!
Get Set!
Fight!

 

[JDR13]

Holmes is not a case of a psychotic break or some other sudden affliction. He obviously planned the incident over an extended period of time.

 

[BillSeurer]

Look at Libya. The rebels were incredibly brave to fight against the government with only light arms, yes, including automatic weapons, *BUT* they were getting their rears handed to them before the outside governments smashed the army's heavy equipment. They might still have won in a long drawn out war but that might have taken years or even decades and would have killed countless more people.

What *should* limit the military in acting against their own people is that the military is made up of those people. My dad was in the army and probably if he'd been told to go attack some place in the US he'd have told the leaders to go perform impossible sex acts before he skedaddled.

 

[Thrasher]

My solution was ramping up mental health care in the country and reallowing forceable treatment. I find that much preferable over restraining everyone else's rights.

Well that may help the crazy after the fact, but I don't see it help preventing the original crimes when the crazy loses it. It also doesn't help with long term criminals that have avoided arrest.

 

[Charles-cgr]

@blatantninja Honestly if the right to bear arms was the answer to the Patriot Act why has it been around for almost 10 years? Do you really see people using guns to prevent pre-emptive incarcerations, scanning of emails and phonetaps?

Here's what would have happened in that dark theatre, imho, if 30 people had a gun strapped to their hip. Not 14 people would have died, but 50. Misdirected targeting, stray bullets, panic, confusion… How would you, seeing someone fire a gun at the shooter, be sure that he was the good guy, and not the shooter himself, that could turn on you and target you or your wife and kid in a split second?

 

[DArtagnan]

I think you are confusing what mental illness is. Whether it is depression or paranoid schizophrenia, it is an illness. Now an environment can certainly make it worse (a person prone to depression probably doesn't want to live in Seattle for instance), but the underlying cause is a medical one, not a societal one.

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

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 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.

This is a myth. People don't 'just snap'. Its the end result of a series of events/experiences. No one walks down the street happy about life then suddenly pulls out a gun and shoots people. For every instance you hear of someone 'just snapping', there is a trail of missed signs behind it.

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.

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.

I'm not a mental health expert so I can't say exactly, but there are signs that trained professions certainly can see.

How would you get trained professionals to monitor everyone?

Most if not all.

Almost none of them, that's right.

If someone refuses to stay on their meds, yes.

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.

Not at all, prior to the 1970's, we did it all the time.

You did what? Successfully predict breakdowns and prevented them?

Wrong. I am not supporting murder, I am accepting the risk of murder because I think the risk of posed by unchecked tyranny is far greater to society.

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.

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?

As evidenced above, they don't have a lower rate of violent crime and most gun violence is in poverty stricken inner cities. Its a symptom of the overall problem of those areas, not the cause.

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

I don't support the killing of innocent people, not sure how you come to that conclusion. I support my rights.

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.

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

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.

 

[blatantninja]

What does that have to do with anything? They're the only ones with access to attack helicopters, submarines, missiles, carriers, destroyers, and so on and so forth, and you're drawing the line at.. automatic weapons? Really? Somehow that's going to.. what? Keep the military in line? Prevent them from being corrupt?

Again, I fail to see why civilians should have access to automatic weapons. There's nothing they can hope to achieve by it. I just can't find a single, realistic scenario where a weapon like that might be useful.

If someone could present a specific scenario, I'd be very interested in hearing their arguments.

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.

 

[blatantninja]

Well that may help the crazy after the fact, but I don't see it help preventing the original crimes when the crazy loses it. It also doesn't help with long term criminals that have avoided arrest.

You're never going to have a perfect system, but what I propose would not be all after the fact. As I said earlier, there are always signs.

 

[blatantninja]

@blatantninja Honestly if the right to bear arms was the answer to the Patriot Act why has it been around for almost 10 years? Do you really see people using guns to prevent pre-emptive incarcerations, scanning of emails and phonetaps?

People are willing to put up with only so much. As much as people complain, we still have it pretty good in the US for now. If our liberties continue to deteriorate though, that's where the right to bear arms really comes in.

Here's what would have happened in that dark theatre, imho, if 30 people had a gun strapped to their hip. Not 14 people would have died, but 50. Misdirected targeting, stray bullets, panic, confusion… How would you, seeing someone fire a gun at the shooter, be sure that he was the good guy, and not the shooter himself, that could turn on you and target you or your wife and kid in a split second?

That's a nice fantasy, but I can do the same. If our perp knew that there were 30 people with a gun strapped to their hip, would he have still attacked it? Its obvious he didn't want to die as he gave himself up easily to police.

And I never said that I think everyone should be armed everywhere they go either.