At Least 14 Killed in Colo. Movie Shooting

Well then, let's review, shall we? I've taken the liberty of bolding. Quote #1 clearly establishes that you equate gun ownership with the problems. Thus, direct causation. Quote #2 introduces the hedge of "easy access", which is a complaint about the application of gun ownership rather than gun ownership in and of itself. Now, I demonstrated that "easy access" is, in fact, a largely false accusation since the requirements to legally own a gun in the US are remarkably similar to the requirements to legally own a gun in Germany. So, not only did you hedge back from direct causation, but you did so on a factually inaccurate basis.

No, let's stick to reality - which I know a bit better, seeing as I wrote the words in question. I said, as the very first thing, that WESTERN culture is severely fucked up. This, by the way, does not mean that other cultures aren't fucked up. It just means that I know western culture enough to feel confident in speaking my mind about it. To me, it's fucked up - in a very big way.

Now, imagine those words are there for a reason. I'm not the kind of person to write things that I don't think are relevant. This means that bit about the guns isn't the only thing I said - and as such, is far from the only problem.

I don't know the gun laws in Germany - but I do know the culture of Germany. If it's really true that you can get a gun easily there, then that's a problem. But it's a problem on a much smaller scale - because there's no widespread gun fetish culture, and as such - you won't find guns without needing to look for them.

Given that your bait was factually inaccurate, do you consider the data valid, even if we accept the explanation?

I have no idea what you're talking about. There's no test of validity for what I said. You can't dig up a single example of another country with lax gun laws - or that you imagine to be lax - and pretend that gun laws are excluded as a significant factor. Only someone without capacity for logic would do that.

As was pointed out, this is also factually inaccurate based on the real-world situation in Mexico, where rigid gun control hasn't accomplished squat, and might have even made matters worse. Do you honestly believe that the kind of person that's willing to shoot someone is going to give two shits about whether he's got a license to carry?

It's not the license to carry - it's the easy access to purchase or get your hands on them through other means. You need to think harder about what happens. If your frontier/wild west heritage means you think guns are cool, then a lot of people will want to have guns. If it's easy to get a license - then a lot of people will have guns, and if a lot of people have guns - there are a lot of guns up for sale or alternate means of switching hands. See? It's not just about the laws - but the laws are what we can change.

I haven't said Mexico is a wonderful place - and I'm not sure why it's relevant. I'm not saying America is the only country in the world with issues - or that gun laws are the only reason for issues worldwide. Again, you need to separate issues and stop pretending everything is black and white, and all the factors can disappear if you want to get at the truth.

But that's not a systemic problem of US laws as you are stating, since our laws for legal gun ownership are largely the same as yours. If you want to rail against an overarching cultural disregard for the law in America, then you'd definitely be on to something, but that has only tangential connection to legal gun ownership.

Say what? What world are you living in? Do you have any idea how hard it is to get a gun around here?

I'm talking about the cultural acceptance of firearms in America. I have no problem with that specific cultural aspect - and in fact I think there are good things about it. The reason it's a problem, though, is that a LOT of people are not in their right minds and a lot of people (well, far too many - anyway) are starting to think it's ok to shoot other people. That's part of modern western culture - and America is at the forefront of this sickness - again, without excluding other cultures around the world. That's because you're still in power, culturally, and you're in the leadership position regarding mass consumption of entertainment. Hollywood is a key factor in all of this, and unfortunately - people with mental health issues find inspiration in what they watch or perceive. That's movies, TV, games, and so on.

No, Hollywood isn't to blame - and entertainment isn't evil. It's how all the factors combine to generate a very sick society - where things get confused. Then, you have VERY easy access to firearms - and you can see the results for yourself.

The problem with firearms - as opposed to other means of killing, is that they're extremely deadly and convenient. It takes nothing, physically, to gun down other people - and you can easily end yourself if that's your plan - or you can easily escape because you have the means to control everyone. That's the real problem with firearms - because people always choose the path of least resistance and guns are exactly that if you want your pain reflected on innocent people.
 
Last edited:
Guns are good for defending oneself - however, what is if someone decides to defend himself (or herself) against society ?
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,910
Location
Old Europe
Depends on whether or not they succeed.

Are you sure? I say that if they try to "defend" themselves against a secular democracy it doesn't matter if they succeed or not.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
6,027
Are you sure? I say that if they try to "defend" themselves against a secular democracy it doesn't matter if they succeed or not.
What about a religious democracy? Presumably, in a democracy, the religion would be determined by popular approval, just like the lawmakers and laws that they make (so skip the whole "tyranny of the masses" excuse). Is there something unique about a secular democracy, or does that just happen to fit your personal preferences?
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,536
Location
Illinois, USA

Not a whole lot of first world countries among those though. The next rich country on the list is Finland (incidentally also a country with very widespread gun ownership), which according to this list has a murder rate less than half the US one.

I think it would be extremely strange if there wasnt some sort of correlation between how common guns are and how common it is for people to be killed by them, but going by this table sort by murder rate per 100000 or by rank of gun ownership) that clearly isnt the only factor. The US is an outlier and might be that for other reasons.

These tragedies still are rare enough to not be considered an argument against allowing responsible gun ownership. We cant and shouldnt ban all health hazards.

EDIT: IIRC there was a clearer correlation if one excluded bulky hunting weapons (not favoured by criminals) from the lists, but I dont have that data at hand.
 
Joined
Nov 4, 2006
Messages
2,013
No, let's stick to reality - which I know a bit better, seeing as I wrote the words in question. I said, as the very first thing, that WESTERN culture is severely fucked up. This, by the way, does not mean that other cultures aren't fucked up. It just means that I know western culture enough to feel confident in speaking my mind about it. To me, it's fucked up - in a very big way.
Fair enough, although that generalization has no linkage to gun laws until you construct one, which you did.
Now, imagine those words are there for a reason. I'm not the kind of person to write things that I don't think are relevant. This means that bit about the guns isn't the only thing I said - and as such, is far from the only problem.
True, however given that the thread is clearly focusing on gun control at the moment and your discussion clearly focuses on gun control, would it not be reasonable to think that, of your mental laundry list of problems, you're focusing on gun control?
I don't know the gun laws in Germany - but I do know the culture of Germany. If it's really true that you can get a gun easily there, then that's a problem. But it's a problem on a much smaller scale - because there's no widespread gun fetish culture, and as such - you won't find guns without needing to look for them.
I thought this was a problem with corrupt western culture? You did say that. Did Germany go Hindu when I wasn't looking? You're welcome to supply other data points. For now, I only have one (supplied by Alrik), and it contradicts your hypothesis. Further, it's highly unlikely that the German datapoint is a statistical flier when compared to other Euro nations. Granted, that's an assumption, but I feel fairly safe with it until shown otherwise.

I have no idea what you're talking about. There's no test of validity for what I said. You can't dig up a single example of another country with lax gun laws - or that you imagine to be lax - and pretend that gun laws are excluded as a significant factor. Only someone without capacity for logic would do that.
I'd say that someone seeking legal remedies to cultural problems might be the one being a little sloppy with their logic. Particularly when evidence is readily available that the proposed legal remedies do not work (Mexico), AND that existing legal remedies DO work in similar situations (Germany/Europe).

It's not the license to carry - it's the easy access to purchase or get your hands on them through other means. You need to think harder about what happens.
Once more, your definition of "easy access" has been shown to be flat-out false. The legal requirements to purchase a gun are largely the same between Germany and the US. Now, if you want to open the discussion to "other means", that's fine. I would seriously question the logic of proposing a legal remedy when your stated problem lies with people that don't follow the law.

If your frontier/wild west heritage means you think guns are cool, then a lot of people will want to have guns. If it's easy to get a license - then a lot of people will have guns, and if a lot of people have guns - there are a lot of guns up for sale or alternate means of switching hands. See? It's not just about the laws - but the laws are what we can change.
There you go again with the "easy to get" thing. The legal process to own a gun in the US is largely the same as the legal process to own a gun in Germany. Either your structure falls on its face before it even gets started, or you're having difficulty keeping track of the difference between a legal problem and a cultural problem. If you've read, I'm actually agreeing with you that there's a cultural problem. I just can't understand how you think imposing legal limitations is going to have any effect on people that don't constrain themselves with laws.

I haven't said Mexico is a wonderful place - and I'm not sure why it's relevant.
It's relevant because you've stated that gun control will help solve the cultural problem. We have a readily available and easily verifiable data point on our southern border and that data point says your proposed solution does not work.

Say what? What world are you living in? Do you have any idea how hard it is to get a gun around here?
My knowledge of your nation's gun laws is decidedly lacking. In fact, my knowledge of German gun laws is based on internet posts, so it's entirely possible I've been misled. Kinda doubt that, but it's certainly possible. That said, with the information I have at this time, the answer to your question is that it is no more difficult to legally acquire a gun in Europe (based on the German example) than it is in the US. The only real difference I have identified is based on the TYPE of gun--it's easier to legally acquire weapons that are more dangerous over here. Unfortunately, you've made no mention of that distinction and I'm not sure the data, such as it is, would support the attempt.

I'm talking about the cultural acceptance of firearms in America. I have no problem with that specific cultural aspect - and in fact I think there are good things about it. The reason it's a problem, though, is that a LOT of people are not in their right minds and a lot of people (well, far too many - anyway) are starting to think it's ok to shoot other people. That's part of modern western culture - and America is at the forefront of this sickness - again, without excluding other cultures around the world.
OK, I'm on board with all that, actually. So, not only are you proposing a legal remedy to control people that don't pay attention to the law, but now you want to apply it to people that are clinically incapable of understanding the law in the first place?

The problem with firearms - as opposed to other means of killing, is that they're extremely deadly and convenient. It takes nothing, physically, to gun down other people - and you can easily end yourself if that's your plan - or you can easily escape because you have the means to control everyone. That's the real problem with firearms - because people always choose the path of least resistance and guns are exactly that if you want your pain reflected on innocent people.
Not sure I agree, but OK. Genie's out of the bottle at this point, though, wouldn't you agree? Yearning for a simpler time isn't going to accomplish much.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,536
Location
Illinois, USA
I do not know about the German gun laws but a bit a bout the Dutch ones.
In the Netherlands all weapons are forbidden. This includes guns, but also knifes, fake weapons, self defense weapons (like pepper spray and such) and some more.
An exception to this is an antique gun, which you can own. For all other weapons you could apply for a license when you are a collector, hunter or practice shooting as a sport.
A weapon should always be locked away in a safe location separately from the ammunition (which is also to be stored in a safe location). A safe location is in general a safe, a shoebox will isn't good enough :)
You are not allowed to carry a weapon both indoor and outdoor unless you are traveling from and to a shooting range, but it cannot be loaded. Only when you arrive there you are allowed to load the gun and use it.
Shooting a burglar or anyone else entering your property with a gun is a sure way to get you to prison.
When you apply for a license the police will check you out and if there are no records of you indicating that owning a gun would be hazardous your license is applied.
You will be visited on an irregular basis to check if you comply with the rules.

Still, none of the above will prevent anyone who legally owns one or more guns, to take them, go to a mall and shoot people as has been proven in this little corner of Europe. No license system can prevent that, the only thing a more strict system might do is make it harder to own a gun and make it too much hassle for those who do not need a gun anyway.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
11,223
German gun laws are very similar to what Myrthos described for the NL.

Nobody is allowed to own a gun unless he has a written permit. Guns and ammo have to be stored in separate safes. (The exception are 500 years old villages with a lot of farms. There all old families have guns from back then, stored god knows where.)
Shooting somebody is only tolerated in cases of urgent self defense. But even then only at the exact time when your life is in danger. Otherwise you risk a couple of years in jail.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
7,830
NYC's laws sound like they are similar to The Netherlands (outside of having to keep the gun and ammo separate at home). My wife and I want to get a pistol that we'll keep under the bed in a gun safe with a biometric reader. The process takes close to 6 months, at a minimum. I find it ridiculous. Compare that to Texas (or most states I think) where its just the 7 day federal waiting period.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,353
Location
Austin, TX
Appreciate the data point, Myrthos.
For all other weapons you could apply for a license when you are a collector, hunter or practice shooting as a sport.
More stringent than US as relates to types of weapons, but functionally the same for guns
A weapon should always be locked away in a safe location separately from the ammunition (which is also to be stored in a safe location). A safe location is in general a safe, a shoebox will isn't good enough :)
While considered "good practice", this is not legally mandated.

You are not allowed to carry a weapon both indoor and outdoor unless you are traveling from and to a shooting range, but it cannot be loaded. Only when you arrive there you are allowed to load the gun and use it.
Only licensed guns can be carried. Special permits are required for concealed carry. While considered "good practice" not to carry a loaded weapon in public, this is not legally mandated except for certain situations and/or locations. Having a loaded weapon does entail additional legal responsibility, though.
Shooting a burglar or anyone else entering your property with a gun is a sure way to get you to prison.
This varies state-to-state, but overall this is a significant difference. Doesn't really deal with gun ownership, though, rather usage.
When you apply for a license the police will check you out and if there are no records of you indicating that owning a gun would be hazardous your license is applied.
Background checks (plus waiting periods) are largely mandatory, although those laws (and the strength thereof) are usually under attack by various interest groups. This area is where the majority of our regulatory battles are fought these days.
You will be visited on an irregular basis to check if you comply with the rules.
Nothing like that here, but again that deals more with usage than ownership.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,536
Location
Illinois, USA
What about a religious democracy? Presumably, in a democracy, the religion would be determined by popular approval, just like the lawmakers and laws that they make (so skip the whole "tyranny of the masses" excuse). Is there something unique about a secular democracy, or does that just happen to fit your personal preferences?

Secular in theology means "where time passes" as compared to a hypothetical realm where "no time passes". It's an old word for "this world". Since it's difficult/impossible to determine anything "out of this world" then people who claim to know things about other world must be taken on their word. The result is that a non-secular approach have to rely on some peoples ideas/interpretions about what other worlds have in them.

The classic concept in European political philosophy was a reaction against the Pope (and the catholic church) claim to be the spokesmen for God in this world (and later on the monarch kings claim that they are elected by God). People begun to question why a ruling class of priests and clerics should push their interpretion of scripture on other faiths, the other option is personal faith, each person have to decide what faith makes sense to themselves. This alternate view promotes a "personal relationship with God", rather than communicating with God via a group of humans who are spokespersons for God.

A modern example of a non-secular nation is Iran, where a ruling class of clerics claim to have the 12th Imam in a well, who can be asked directly on how to rule the nation. If this was actually true then awesome, let's all listen to the group of people who can communicate with this Imam (since there seems to be a problem if we listened to the 12th Imam directly). But what if it's not true, like for say, no 12th Imam exist and the ruling class of clerics in Iran just makes it all up to protect their power in which they are free to rule how they please?

Unlike "secular" there's no clear definition about what "religious" is. The only question is if any group of humans can be put in charge of deciding what otherworld forces want to see in this world. This means that there's no religious freedom and since the nation isn't ruled by the people there's no democracy either.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
6,027
In the Netherlands all weapons are forbidden. This includes guns, but also knifes, fake weapons, self defense weapons (like pepper spray and such) and some more.
An exception to this is an antique gun, which you can own. For all other weapons you could apply for a license when you are a collector, hunter or practice shooting as a sport.

When you apply for a license the police will check you out and if there are no records of you indicating that owning a gun would be hazardous your license is applied.
You will be visited on an irregular basis to check if you comply with the rules.

Then it sounds like there's not actually much difference between there and the US. People are allowed to carry pepper spray here (I think), but you must apply for a license to purchase a gun for any reason, and they run a background check on you first. You wouldn't be visited afterwards though.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,138
Location
Florida, US
I just saw an ad for "The Dark Knight Rises" on Norwegian TV. Nothing wrong with that, but it made me uncomfortable, which surpriser me a bit, as I hasn't reacted that strong to the other mass shooting incidents in the US (they did affect me, of course, but there's something about distance). Maybe the link to the movie made it more concrete.

Could also be that it happened just a couple of days before we this sunday commemorated the 22th of july killings here in Norway. Which makes me wonder: could the killer have been inspired by our Norwegian terrorist (guns and explosives)? Is anything known about his motives?

pibbur
 
Which makes me wonder: could the killer have been inspired by our Norwegian terrorist (guns and explosives)? Is anything known about his motives?

pibbur
As of the news reports so far, we know nothing and he ain't talking. Apparently that didn't change at his hearing this morning, where he said nothing and looked doped up.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,536
Location
Illinois, USA
Then it sounds like there's not actually much difference between there and the US. People are allowed to carry pepper spray here (I think), but you must apply for a license to purchase a gun for any reason, and they run a background check on you first. You wouldn't be visited afterwards though.

That varies state by state. Handguns you have to get a license first everywhere (I think), but you can buy a shotgun or a rifle in many states with just an ID and leave with it the same day.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,353
Location
Austin, TX
I found it rather bizarre that it was easier for me to purchase ammo than a can of compressed air last week. For the ammo the lady at the counter just looked at me and said "You look older than 18". For the compressed air I had to produce my driver's license which they scanned. Of course if I had been buying some decongestant I would have also had to do the ID thing and sign something before I got it.
 
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
1,769
Location
Minnesota, USA
I found it rather bizarre that it was easier for me to purchase ammo than a can of compressed air last week. For the ammo the lady at the counter just looked at me and said "You look older than 18". For the compressed air I had to produce my driver's license which they scanned. Of course if I had been buying some decongestant I would have also had to do the ID thing and sign something before I got it.
So true. Here in rural Indiana, meth production is so bad that they track (and actually review for multiple purchases at different locations) all antihistamine purchases. Although I can't think of the term at the moment, they've even got a name for people that go store-to-store buying the maximum amount and then reselling it to the meth labs. I'm not looking forward to the day when my family of 5 gets a nasty, nagging cold at the same time. Could lead to a visit from the state police.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,536
Location
Illinois, USA
So true. Here in rural Indiana, meth production is so bad that they track (and actually review for multiple purchases at different locations) all antihistamine purchases. Although I can't think of the term at the moment, they've even got a name for people that go store-to-store buying the maximum amount and then reselling it to the meth labs. I'm not looking forward to the day when my family of 5 gets a nasty, nagging cold at the same time. Could lead to a visit from the state police.

Hoosier Grandmother Arrested for Purchasing Cold Medication

Last March, Sally Harpold, an Indiana grandmother of triplets, bought two boxes of cold medication in less than a week. Together, the two boxes contained 3.6 grams of pseudoephedrine, putting her in violation of the state’s methamphetamine-fighting law, which forbids the purchase of more than three grams by one person in a seven-day period.

Police came to Harpold’s home, arrested and handcuffed her, and booked her in a Vermillion County jail. No one believes Harpold was making meth or aiding anyone who was. But local authorities aren’t apologizing for her arrest.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,353
Location
Austin, TX
Fair enough, although that generalization has no linkage to gun laws until you construct one, which you did.

So? I'm describing two things that combine to a serious problem. They're not separate unless we treat them separately - which you're the one insisting on doing.

True, however given that the thread is clearly focusing on gun control at the moment and your discussion clearly focuses on gun control, would it not be reasonable to think that, of your mental laundry list of problems, you're focusing on gun control?

It's a natural reaction from people unable or unwilling to correlate all major points of any statement or claim. But, no, I'm not focusing on gun control as the primary issue - but I'm saying it's something we can actually do something about.

I thought this was a problem with corrupt western culture? You did say that. Did Germany go Hindu when I wasn't looking? You're welcome to supply other data points. For now, I only have one (supplied by Alrik), and it contradicts your hypothesis. Further, it's highly unlikely that the German datapoint is a statistical flier when compared to other Euro nations. Granted, that's an assumption, but I feel fairly safe with it until shown otherwise.

I said sick western culture. I really have no interest in responding to something so unfounded - and I actually assumed you knew what you were talking about with your claim about German gun laws. Looking at your later responses - it's pretty evident that you have no idea what you're talking about - and you're trying to change a BLATANTLY clear set of major differences into minor ones.

But I'm glad I'm not THAT out of the loop - because I would have been honestly surprised if Germany provided easy access to weaponry for its citizens.

I'd say that someone seeking legal remedies to cultural problems might be the one being a little sloppy with their logic. Particularly when evidence is readily available that the proposed legal remedies do not work (Mexico), AND that existing legal remedies DO work in similar situations (Germany/Europe).

Tell me, what evidence do you have of gun control "not working" by way of Mexico?

Am I mistaken, or is Mexico located directly beneath the area most lax in gun laws of America? Doesn't that mean something to you?

As for a "remedy" - I'm hardly suggesting the world would be heaven if we banned guns across the board. I'm also not suggesting that because we force husbands to sober up and take alchohol out of the equation - we'd have happy marriages all around the world.

Again, you have to stop thinking in black and white terms. Reality is anything but.

Once more, your definition of "easy access" has been shown to be flat-out false. The legal requirements to purchase a gun are largely the same between Germany and the US. Now, if you want to open the discussion to "other means", that's fine. I would seriously question the logic of proposing a legal remedy when your stated problem lies with people that don't follow the law.

As I've covered - you're utterly wrong about Germany. Certainly about most of Europe - and especially where I'm from.

As for "easy access" - that's too subjective to prove to someone unwilling to use facts for his position. All I can say is that it's WAY too easy to get your hands on a gun in America and in the areas in the immediate vicinity of America - for obvious reasons.

It's relevant because you've stated that gun control will help solve the cultural problem. We have a readily available and easily verifiable data point on our southern border and that data point says your proposed solution does not work.

Again, provide this evidence instead of talking about it. I have no idea what you're talking about - but it's so obvious that taking guns out of the hands of the people will result in less meaningless violence that I can tell you right now that your evidence is wrong no matter what it is. But, please, let's hear it.

OK, I'm on board with all that, actually. So, not only are you proposing a legal remedy to control people that don't pay attention to the law, but now you want to apply it to people that are clinically incapable of understanding the law in the first place?

You REALLY don't get it, do you? It's so simple.

It's not about expecting broken people to follow the law - and let me put it in terms I hope you might understand: "it's about taking the guns off the street" - get it?

Before you begin, let me be clear: there will ALWAYS be guns on the street. But we can reduce the amount of guns to a VERY large degree - and we can make it INCONVENIENT to gain access to them. That alone will make a huge difference for someone breaking down and wanting to harm people. He will have to make an effort to do so, and it will delay and dissuade him.

Not sure I agree, but OK. Genie's out of the bottle at this point, though, wouldn't you agree? Yearning for a simpler time isn't going to accomplish much.

What? Could you be any less serious about wanting to do something about so many people getting killed for no reason? That's great, DTE.
 
Back
Top Bottom