Mass shooting at Batman premier.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Witchfinder wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Quote :

Do you know how many shootings there have been with legally registered machineguns in the United States since 1934? Of course you don't, but I do. The answer is one and that shooting was done by a dirty cop near Dayton, Ohio. So how is your scheme helping?

Again, I don't care. People don't need machine guns, leagal or otherwise. I stated it was simple opinion when I started.

Quote :

They have places where only the police and military are armed. Those places are called police states and I don't think you'd want to live there either.

I never said that. I said people don't need machine guns. I never said they did not need rifles, shotguns, or revolvers. Machine guns are combat weapons. Only those engaging in combat need them. They are not made to shoot targets, or keep burglars out of one's house, or shoot potential food sources. They are intended to kill other people. Period. That's why they are made.

Quote :

Are you actually arguing that someone with a legal CCW (which is not "automatic") could not have prevented some/all of the deaths in that theater?

No. I am arguing that civilians don't need machine guns. I am arguing that, while they may have taken the guy out sooner, they could also have caused more (unintentional) harm. I'm arguing that the guy was going to do it anyway and allowing civilians to have machine guns doesn't change that any more than NOT allowing them to have them.

Quote :

All the law enforcement literature will show that to stop a mass murderer you need to engage him immediately. Once that happens they do one of two things - surrender or kill themselves. It happens time and time again.

I have no doubt...and that is what law enforcement should do.

Quote :

If you are saying that you wish that certain weapons did not exist then wish away. It's not going to happen.

I'm not wishing anything didn't exist. I'm only saying that there is no legitimate, rational reason to allow civilians to obtain and own automatic weapons. My statement was about machine guns, not non-automatic weapons. We have a right to bear arms, to protect our families, to hunt animals, to shoot at targets on weekends, whatever...but we don't need machine guns to do that.

You do understand, that this guy did NOT use a machingun, right? I am not sure you do.

I came in, saw gun/weapons talk...decided to voice my general opinion on automatic weapons...nothing more.

I'll go away now.

Okay great. Thanks for sharing your opinion on weapons rarely used in crime.

Witchfinder wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Witchfinder wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Quote :

Do you know how many shootings there have been with legally registered machineguns in the United States since 1934? Of course you don't, but I do. The answer is one and that shooting was done by a dirty cop near Dayton, Ohio. So how is your scheme helping?

Again, I don't care. People don't need machine guns, leagal or otherwise. I stated it was simple opinion when I started.

Quote :

They have places where only the police and military are armed. Those places are called police states and I don't think you'd want to live there either.

I never said that. I said people don't need machine guns. I never said they did not need rifles, shotguns, or revolvers. Machine guns are combat weapons. Only those engaging in combat need them. They are not made to shoot targets, or keep burglars out of one's house, or shoot potential food sources. They are intended to kill other people. Period. That's why they are made.

Quote :

Are you actually arguing that someone with a legal CCW (which is not "automatic") could not have prevented some/all of the deaths in that theater?

No. I am arguing that civilians don't need machine guns. I am arguing that, while they may have taken the guy out sooner, they could also have caused more (unintentional) harm. I'm arguing that the guy was going to do it anyway and allowing civilians to have machine guns doesn't change that any more than NOT allowing them to have them.

Quote :

All the law enforcement literature will show that to stop a mass murderer you need to engage him immediately. Once that happens they do one of two things - surrender or kill themselves. It happens time and time again.

I have no doubt...and that is what law enforcement should do.

Quote :

If you are saying that you wish that certain weapons did not exist then wish away. It's not going to happen.

I'm not wishing anything didn't exist. I'm only saying that there is no legitimate, rational reason to allow civilians to obtain and own automatic weapons. My statement was about machine guns, not non-automatic weapons. We have a right to bear arms, to protect our families, to hunt animals, to shoot at targets on weekends, whatever...but we don't need machine guns to do that.

You do understand, that this guy did NOT use a machingun, right? I am not sure you do.

I came in, saw gun/weapons talk...decided to voice my general opinion on automatic weapons...nothing more.

I'll go away now.

Okay great. Thanks for sharing your opinion on weapons rarely used in crime.

You're welcome. And thank you for being such a sweet guy.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Witchfinder wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Witchfinder wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Quote :

Do you know how many shootings there have been with legally registered machineguns in the United States since 1934? Of course you don't, but I do. The answer is one and that shooting was done by a dirty cop near Dayton, Ohio. So how is your scheme helping?

Again, I don't care. People don't need machine guns, leagal or otherwise. I stated it was simple opinion when I started.

Quote :

They have places where only the police and military are armed. Those places are called police states and I don't think you'd want to live there either.

I never said that. I said people don't need machine guns. I never said they did not need rifles, shotguns, or revolvers. Machine guns are combat weapons. Only those engaging in combat need them. They are not made to shoot targets, or keep burglars out of one's house, or shoot potential food sources. They are intended to kill other people. Period. That's why they are made.

Quote :

Are you actually arguing that someone with a legal CCW (which is not "automatic") could not have prevented some/all of the deaths in that theater?

No. I am arguing that civilians don't need machine guns. I am arguing that, while they may have taken the guy out sooner, they could also have caused more (unintentional) harm. I'm arguing that the guy was going to do it anyway and allowing civilians to have machine guns doesn't change that any more than NOT allowing them to have them.

Quote :

All the law enforcement literature will show that to stop a mass murderer you need to engage him immediately. Once that happens they do one of two things - surrender or kill themselves. It happens time and time again.

I have no doubt...and that is what law enforcement should do.

Quote :

If you are saying that you wish that certain weapons did not exist then wish away. It's not going to happen.

I'm not wishing anything didn't exist. I'm only saying that there is no legitimate, rational reason to allow civilians to obtain and own automatic weapons. My statement was about machine guns, not non-automatic weapons. We have a right to bear arms, to protect our families, to hunt animals, to shoot at targets on weekends, whatever...but we don't need machine guns to do that.

You do understand, that this guy did NOT use a machingun, right? I am not sure you do.

I came in, saw gun/weapons talk...decided to voice my general opinion on automatic weapons...nothing more.

I'll go away now.

Okay great. Thanks for sharing your opinion on weapons rarely used in crime.

You're welcome. And thank you for being such a sweet guy.

Any time!

Can we just be disgusted by a horrible, sensless act without getting into a gun debate? A deranged psycopath went off the deep end and a lot of innocent people were killed. Whether someone else had a weapon to comtat it or not is irrelevant and so is whether a person has a right to own a firearm of any kind or not.

Mglaffas81 wrote:

Tragic - classic USA, though....

yet another classic misconception:

• The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world - an average of 88 per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership - and even the number two country, Yemen, has significantly fewer - 54.8 per 100 people

• But the US does not have the worst firearm murder rate - that prize belongs to Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica. In fact, the US is number 28, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list?newsfeed=true

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

IMO, and strictly IMO, no civilian human being needs to own an automatic weapon. Automatic weapons should be restricted for the military and special units of law enforcement. Even semi-automatic, IMO, should be barred from civilians.

I don't care about what "rights" we supposedly have.

I don't care what kind of training the person gets.

I don't care about gun collectors, enthusiaists, whatever.

I don't care that "guns don't kill people".

I know that criminals would still find a way to get their hands on them...they're criminals...we're not.

Nobody, nobody, nobody outside of the military/law enforcement has ANY NEED of an automatic weapon...none...zero.

If you're a law abiding citizen, a hunter, whatever, you have no need of a g***@mned machine gun. If you can't be satisfied with a single-shot rifle, shotgun or pistol then you don't need to own a damn gun.

Again, IMO. I know all the "rights" arguments, and I don't care. We have a right to protect ourselves, and our families, which anyone can do with a 6-shot revolver or a shotgun. You don't need a machine gun to protect your family or kill a deer.

Our government gives machine guns to Mexican drug cartels which then kills US citizens with those guns. Why should it be illegal for me to own one?

exact33 wrote:

Mglaffas81 wrote:

Tragic - classic USA, though....

yet another classic misconception:

• The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world - an average of 88 per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership - and even the number two country, Yemen, has significantly fewer - 54.8 per 100 people

• But the US does not have the worst firearm murder rate - that prize belongs to Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica. In fact, the US is number 28, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list?newsfeed=true

Good stats!!!! And the strict gun control laws in Norway didn't stop that deranged lunatic from doing what he did last year!

The other reason that we have the 2nd amendment is so that the citizens can take up arms against the government if it turns into a dictatorship. Forward thinking on the part of the founding fathers! I for one am glad that we in a country that the citizens have the ability to revolt against an unjust government!

This a subject that really gets me - it's about the government taking more control of your lives, not making the streets "safer". I am 100% opposed to anything that takes away our freedoms - there has been enough of that in the past 20 years and both political parties are at fault! Taking away freedoms isn't a democrat or republican thing, both parties are very guilty.

If the a-hole in Aurora couldn't get the guns legally, he would have done exactly what the sicko in Norway did, go the black market route. A little thing like buying gun legally doesn't stop these pricks.

Rant over!

Quote :

Our government gives machine guns to Mexican drug cartels which then kills US citizens with those guns.

Is this one of those things that is supposedly "common knowledge" yet nobody can actally document?

Quote :

Why should it be illegal for me to own one?

I'm going to say it again...my statement was people don't "need" machine guns.

It comes from a place of "for what practical use could any civilian citizen possibly NEED a machine gun?"

WHY would anyone feel like they NEED a machine gun outside of being a soldier or a member of SWAT? What would possess someone to want to apply to own a machine gun?

I just don't think that ordinary civilians should be allowed to get them...that's all. They should be military/law enforcement only (on the legal side)...IMO. They're combat weapons and complete overkill for a civilian's needs/rights.

Things like this happen as a result of your culture. Plain and simple. Nobody owns guns in Denmark (except for hunters), and we feel perfectly protected - sure, there will always be incidents of people out to hurt each other, but all this "right to own a gun" nonsense only leaves more dead bodies. I'm not here to argue and debate potential scenarios that i KNOW some of you will present me with. The United States is 1000x more crime-ridden than, for example, the Scandinavian countries, and somehow this gets people thinking that having the common man own deadly firearms will resolve this issue - when all it does is add more fuel to the fire. My opinion.

Mglaffas81 wrote:

Things like this happen as a result of your culture.

I agree...

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Quote :

Our government gives machine guns to Mexican drug cartels which then kills US citizens with those guns.

Is this one of those things that is supposedly "common knowledge" yet nobody can actally document?

Quote :

Why should it be illegal for me to own one?

I'm going to say it again...my statement was people don't "need" machine guns.

It comes from a place of "for what practical use could any civilian citizen possibly NEED a machine gun?"

WHY would anyone feel like they NEED a machine gun outside of being a soldier or a member of SWAT? What would possess someone to want to apply to own a machine gun?

I just don't think that ordinary civilians should be allowed to get them...that's all. They should be military/law enforcement only (on the legal side)...IMO. They're combat weapons and complete overkill for a civilian's needs/rights.

100% agreement with the above statements from S.D.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Quote :

Our government gives machine guns to Mexican drug cartels which then kills US citizens with those guns.

Is this one of those things that is supposedly "common knowledge" yet nobody can actally document?

Its well documented and has been all over the news, even though the most open and transparent administration exerted executive privilege over the operation documents.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/atf-fast-furious-sg,0,3828090.storygallery

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Quote :

Why should it be illegal for me to own one?

I'm going to say it again...my statement was people don't "need" machine guns.

It comes from a place of "for what practical use could any civilian citizen possibly NEED a machine gun?"

WHY would anyone feel like they NEED a machine gun outside of being a soldier or a member of SWAT? What would possess someone to want to apply to own a machine gun?

I just don't think that ordinary civilians should be allowed to get them...that's all. They should be military/law enforcement only (on the legal side)...IMO. They're combat weapons and complete overkill for a civilian's needs/rights.

Government should never hold a monopoly on the use of force. History is replete with examples of tyrannical governments enslaving and murdering its citizens through the application of overwhelming force. The Second Amendment was written at a time where ordinary citizens pretty much owned the same weapons as the military and I dont think the intent has changed, although I do understand self made nuclear devices are out of the reach of normal civilians. I have no issue with government requiring background checks, investigations, clearance and the like but the need is there to keep the government honest. I am not advocating that our current government is tyrannical or to use force against the government but I believe that rarely do tyrants give advance notice of their intent.

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. " Thomas Jefferson

manny wrote:

100% agreement with the above statements from S.D.

Except that wasn't me, it was Shawn Of Fire. I do tend to agree with his stance on semi-automatic and automatic weapons, private citizens don't need them.

This whole "rebel against the government" thing is pretty funny too unless we're also stockpiling attack helicopters, armored tanks and nuclear weapons.

exact33 wrote:

Government should never hold a monopoly on the use of force. History is replete with examples of tyrannical governments enslaving and murdering its citizens through the application of overwhelming force. The Second Amendment was written at a time where ordinary citizens pretty much owned the same weapons as the military and I dont think the intent has changed, although I do understand self made nuclear devices are out of the reach of normal civilians. I have no issue with government requiring background checks, investigations, clearance and the like but the need is there to keep the government honest. I am not advocating that our current government is tyrannical or to use force against the government but I believe that rarely do tyrants give advance notice of their intent.

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. " Thomas Jefferson

I just disagree...that's all. So, "at the time" we all owned the same kinds of weapons...because that's all that existed. That should not mean that every time there is a new kind of gun created for military or law enforcement use that civilians are somehow entitled to own them as well.

Again, just my opinion...we just disagree.

S.D. wrote:

manny wrote:

100% agreement with the above statements from S.D.

Except that wasn't me, it was Shawn Of Fire. I do tend to agree with his stance on semi-automatic and automatic weapons, private citizens don't need them.

This whole "rebel against the government" thing is pretty funny too unless we're also stockpiling attack helicopters, armored tanks and nuclear weapons.

Exactly.

Mglaffas81 wrote:

Things like this happen as a result of your culture. Plain and simple. Nobody owns guns in Denmark (except for hunters), and we feel perfectly protected - sure, there will always be incidents of people out to hurt each other, but all this "right to own a gun" nonsense only leaves more dead bodies. I'm not here to argue and debate potential scenarios that i KNOW some of you will present me with. The United States is 1000x more crime-ridden than, for example, the Scandinavian countries, and somehow this gets people thinking that having the common man own deadly firearms will resolve this issue - when all it does is add more fuel to the fire. My opinion.

more platitudes which are not factual - Denmark actually has a pretty high percentage of gun ownership among the EU and it is no surprise it has lower violence levels that those EU countries that have banned guns outright. Similarly, American jurisdictions that allow arms for citizens are far safer and more crime-free than jurisdictions that enact stringent "gun control" laws. Worldwide gun ownership rates do not correlate with higher murder or suicide rates. In fact, many nations with high gun ownership have significantly lower murder and suicide rates.

Source: http://www.mcsm.org/bansnohelp.pdf

which contains the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy article WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE
MURDER AND SUICIDE? A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AND SOME DOMESTIC EVIDENCE
DON B. KATES AND GARY MAUSER

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

S.D. wrote:

manny wrote:

100% agreement with the above statements from S.D.

Except that wasn't me, it was Shawn Of Fire. I do tend to agree with his stance on semi-automatic and automatic weapons, private citizens don't need them.

This whole "rebel against the government" thing is pretty funny too unless we're also stockpiling attack helicopters, armored tanks and nuclear weapons.

Exactly.

I think some of biggest atrocities in history would have looked significantly different if the those who the crimes were being perpetrated against had a reasonable ability to defend themselves.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

exact33 wrote:

Government should never hold a monopoly on the use of force. History is replete with examples of tyrannical governments enslaving and murdering its citizens through the application of overwhelming force. The Second Amendment was written at a time where ordinary citizens pretty much owned the same weapons as the military and I dont think the intent has changed, although I do understand self made nuclear devices are out of the reach of normal civilians. I have no issue with government requiring background checks, investigations, clearance and the like but the need is there to keep the government honest. I am not advocating that our current government is tyrannical or to use force against the government but I believe that rarely do tyrants give advance notice of their intent.

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. " Thomas Jefferson

I just disagree...that's all. So, "at the time" we all owned the same kinds of weapons...because that's all that existed. That should not mean that every time there is a new kind of gun created for military or law enforcement use that civilians are somehow entitled to own them as well.

Again, just my opinion...we just disagree.

its cool. I know that going back and forth isnt going to change yours or my opinion. Its fun having the conversation.

Hopefully steering this off the gun debate for a moment...

Christian Bale is in Aurora today visiting the victims of the shooting.

S.D. wrote:

Hopefully steering this off the gun debate for a moment...

Christian Bale is in Aurora today visiting the victims of the shooting.

Very classy move - glad to see he did that!

Very cool...I like how he went, allowed his photo to be taken, but didn't call a "press conference" about it.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Very cool...I like how he went, allowed his photo to be taken, but didn't call a "press conference" about it.

Agreed. Suitably understated, respectful and classy. One lady on the news said she had no idea it was him standing beside her at the memorial until the end.

I'm not against gun-ownership, and I don't know the specific stats on gun-ownership in european countries, but I do live in Denmark, and guns are surely not put to use in the same way here as in the States. We may have guns (I still think that almost exclusively concerns hunters), we just don't use them for the wrong reasons.


And Exact, if you are emplying that Denmark is a safer nation because of higher gun-ownership, well - that is just wrong. First off, we have extremely strict self-defence laws in denmark - you fire a weapon on an intruder, you will almost certainly be serving jail time. We don't "protect our families" with guns - hell, even if the police fire their weapons it's all over the news. I don't know anyone here who owns a gun for "protection" - not one.

i keep a gun under my bed to protect my family. and it's no big deal at all. other than that my gun is very classy. i'm currently applying for a concealed weapons permit to be capable in a pinch.

Mglaffas81 wrote:

And Exact, if you are emplying that Denmark is a safer nation because of higher gun-ownership, well - that is just wrong. First off, we have extremely strict self-defence laws in denmark - you fire a weapon on an intruder, you will almost certainly be serving jail time. We don't "protect our families" with guns - hell, even if the police fire their weapons it's all over the news. I don't know anyone here who owns a gun for "protection" - not one.

i'm to hear you would be doing time if you shot an intruder. i would think you have every right to assume an intruder has worst case scenario intentions and are justified in shooting them.