mass shootings in chicago, new york

That, too, is a fact. If the citizens who were shot at had guns, they would likely have shot back, starting a riot. Also, the ones who shot those people were policemen, so it wasn't like random people starting shooting each other, they had guns to help them defend the citizens, not to shoot bystanders(at least in theory).
 
It's funny that you guys bring up the Aurora, CO incident as the example where citizens having guns would've helped. The shooter was decked out in tactical protective gear from the top of his head all the way down to his feet. He was literally a bulletproof robot killing machine.

Also, if trained officers cannot even hit the target, what makes you think an average citizen is going to hit the target?

What if somebody decides they just want to kill somebody else and use the excuse of "Yeah, well, I was just trying to kill the other guy that was shooting everybody."

Everybody having a gun in public is a horrible idea.
 

verbatim

[PLACEHOLDER]
is a Smogon Discord Contributoris a Battle Simulator Moderatoris a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnus
Also I'm pretty sure there are regulations against firing at a suspect if it could bring harm to civilians but that could've just been a really strange scenario
The standard fair for police officers is to not engage if there is a change of injuring a bystander. With that being said, if the suspect was firing upon them, then it could explain why the officers would deviate from protocol (note that I am not stating wether such a decision was good or bad, merely offering a thought as to why it was made).
 
The shooter was decked out in tactical protective gear from the top of his head all the way down to his feet.
After wading through the liberal media I finally figured out what he was wearing. If he had all of his gear properly equipped at the time, he would have been vulnerable in a few places such as the face, sides, and arms. Which brings us to:
Also, if trained officers cannot even hit the target, what makes you think an average citizen is going to hit the target?
Untrained citizens probably couldn't hit those exposed areas but he wasn't wearing an EOD suit so he wouldn't have just stood still picking people off if there was incoming fire. Even by a citizen shooting in his direction, time is being bought for other people to escape. Also from what I've seen, most states require training with a firearm before a permit is given for carrying. More training is better in my opinion but that's up to the people on an individual basis
What if somebody decides they just want to kill somebody else and use the excuse of "Yeah, well, I was just trying to kill the other guy that was shooting everybody."
This is why we have laws and a court system. And to go with your logic, this is still entirely possible without "Everybody having a gun in public"
 
Well, this wasn't supposed to degrade into gun control, but it already has, so I guess I might as well provide my opinion on it.
I think that there should be a gun ban, of sorts. I am fully aware that this goes against the second amendment, but I have my reasons. Firstly, if nobody carried guns, stuff like this wouldn't happen. Yes, people could be murdered with knives and other things, but those tools serve other purposes. Axes can cut down trees. Knives can cut food. But guns? Guns only kill people. That is their only purpose. And since murder is illegal, why carry them? Self-defense comes to mind naturally, but if neither criminal nor victim had a gun, then it wouldn't be an issue. Yes, the murderer could have a knife, but so could the victim. Guns are just unnecessary. The next thing that pops to mind is the hillbilly sitting on his couch sporting a sawed-off shotgun with a deer head mounted on the wall. It's true that he wasn't killing people, but he was killing animals. I could go into a full speech about animal rights right here, but that's offtopic and I don't feel very strongly for it. If there was a gun ban, the hunter would be out of the job. If he fits the stereotype, he'd be shouting about his guns being taken away the second the topic is brought up. But still, he could find other things to do besides hunt. I find hunting to be barbaric and old-fashioned, and there are several other things people could do with their time.
Now for the big argument: the second amendment. The second amendment guarantees everyone the right to bear arms. When looking at this, I look at it from a historical point of view. When the Bill of Rights was created, America had just won the Revolutionary War. Several of the people involved in the war were a special type of militia called Minutemen. They were ordinary citizens with guns, who got their nickname because they could respond to a call to arms within a minute. They were a key part of the American militia, and they were only ordinary, untrained citizens who owned guns. This was probably a big influence on the second amendment. At the time of the creation of the amendment, many Americans owned guns for their own purposes. One must keep in mind that America then was much more violent. There were still tensions between America and Britain, Native Americans posed a threat to ordinary people, and food was usually acquired through hunting. For this reason, the writers of the Constitution thought the second amendment should be included in the Bill of Rights. But none of this is the case today. No organized group of people poses a thread to everyday people. The world is much less violent. There is very little need for guns now. I think the second amendment no longer applies to the modern world, and should be repealed. The world has changed; naturally, some laws will grow old and unnecessary. The second amendment is one of these laws.
I believe a gun ban should be enforced for these reasons. I don't expect one to be passed, in fact, I am sure that none of what I have suggested will ever happen. I'm just speculating what I think will make the world a better, more peaceful place.

TL;DR: A gun ban should be enforced because it will lower crime rates, and make the world more peaceful.
 
im with wyboth but why stop at guns when you can ban knives

you can use them as projectiles by throwing them even!! knives and guns for uber tire

edit: for real though, we don't need to be messing with gun laws for all the reasons that have already been posted
 
im with wyboth but why stop at guns when you can ban knives

you can use them as projectiles by throwing them even!! knives and guns for uber tire

edit: for real though, we don't need to be messing with gun laws for all the reasons that have already been posted
The reason why I didn't say to ban knives was because they have a purpose other than killing.
As for messing with the rules, I said I didn't expect any of this to ever happen, I was just theorizing.
 
After wading through the liberal media
This is irrelevant, and I'm sorry to derail things, but I never understand why conservatives like to throw in little jabs everywhere. I've met a lot of right-wing guys who do exact same thing, insert little partisan potshots into their statements (my uncle actually does this all the time at the dinner table) and I never understand how to respond to them. I'm sure the "liberal" media deliberately obfuscated the details of James Holmes' murdering suit for nefarious purposes; spot on.

I finally figured out what he was wearing. If he had all of his gear properly equipped at the time, he would have been vulnerable in a few places such as the face, sides, and arms. Which brings us to:
Untrained citizens probably couldn't hit those exposed areas but he wasn't wearing an EOD suit so he wouldn't have just stood still picking people off if there was incoming fire. Even by a citizen shooting in his direction, time is being bought for other people to escape.
It's also entirely possible other people could have been hit, as has been said before; in fact, a murderer with body armor is probably not going to care about errant shots. Do you really think the situation would've been better if there were more guns in that theatre? It's possible somebody could hit his face but in the chaos and confusion of that room there isn't going to be some Dirty Harry with perfect aim. People are going to be running for their lives, and it's far more likely that another innocent person would be hurt in the process.

This is why we have laws and a court system. And to go with your logic, this is still entirely possible without "Everybody having a gun in public"
Unfortunately, laws do not physically prohibit people from doing things. To say stuff like "people will still kill each other without guns" is just ignoring the point. Guns make it really easy to kill people! That is the entire point, in fact, of a gun: pull the trigger and bam, you don't have to look at your biology teacher's ugly face any longer. Human emotions are not forged in iron on a constant basis; likewise, the urge to kill will not overpower every obstacle set against it. This point was ridiculous to begin with, but if your goal is to get away with murder in the middle of a firefight, I'm sure it's easier to just use a gun than to go all Sam Fisher on randoms or to start running around the map knifing everyone.

You mentioned nuclear deterrents earlier; but the Soviets knew that America had a nuclear bomb, most criminals do not know and probably do not care that citizens have guns. The idea that it is possible for a private citizen with no training to have a gun somewhere in their apartment is not going to deter anybody. Either it's harder for both citizens and criminals to get guns, in which case criminals have a harder time getting guns and citizens (debatably) have a harder time protecting themselves, or it's easier for criminals and citizens to get guns, in which case criminals have an easier time killing people with guns and citizens have an easier time (debatably, again) defending themselves from criminals. Arguably, neither are amazing scenarios but it seems to me that the one in which less violence happens is the one with less guns. BOCTAOE.
 
Zacchaeus please don't bring bullshit about liberal media into this thread. We are discussing gun violence, if you want to discuss media bias you are free to make a different thread.

Banning guns has varying effectiveness. Most recreational drugs are banned, yet somehow people still obtain them. If you make something too difficult to obtain legally, people will turn to other ways of getting it. (See: drugs, weapons, music, video games, etc.)

I do not think that the constitution should be used in defense of gun rights. Simply because someone decided 230 years ago that guns should be allowed does not necessarily mean that they should be used now; on the flip side, there are reasons that are now present that weren't relevant 230 years ago. Just because the specific reasons have changed does not mean that the idea is any less relevant.

Apart from that, Wyboth your post seems targeted at a very specific type of gun crime. Not all people with guns are hillbilly couch-potatoes.
 
Guns only have one purpose: TO KILL SOMEONE.

Seriously, why would anyone argue having less guns is a bad thing?

Am I the only one who thinks it's stupid that so many pro-life people support freedom to own instruments of death?
 
Guns only have one purpose: TO KILL SOMEONE.

Seriously, why would anyone argue having less guns is a bad thing?

Am I the only one who thinks it's stupid that so many pro-life people support freedom to own instruments of death?
It's true, guns kill people. People also drown in swimming pools. In fact, more people die annually from drowning than they do from guns. I bet you wouldn't say that there should be less swimming pools. Why are guns so different?

The point I'm trying to make here is that while gun ownership and gun violence is certainly a major issue, saying such things as "Guns shouldn't be allowed because they kill people," is a ridiculous argument that I think shouldn't be used when they are in fact plenty of things that people die from, such as swimming pools, that you would never say to outlaw.

Someone stop me if I'm wrong.
 
It's true, guns kill people. People also drown in swimming pools. In fact, more people die annually from drowning than they do from guns. I bet you wouldn't say that there should be less swimming pools. Why are guns so different?

The point I'm trying to make here is that while gun ownership and gun violence is certainly a major issue, saying such things as "Guns shouldn't be allowed because they kill people," is a ridiculous argument that I think shouldn't be used when they are in fact plenty of things that people die from, such as swimming pools, that you would never say to outlaw.

Someone stop me if I'm wrong.
That's a strawman argument, who taught you how to argue? Swimming pools aren't designed to kill people. I'm not saying to remove guns PERIOD, obviously that would never fly in the first place. It should be more DIFFICULT though, that wouldn't hurt. Less guns in the general population isn't a bad thing. No, you could never truly solve the problem of gun violence like you can never solve a lot of problems, but it doesn't hurt to fight.
 

xenu

Banned deucer.
yeah this thread is kind of pointless if the op is "here's an article, don't talk about it"
no I just wanted to avoid the trainwreck past gun control threads have become, but if you guys are ok with gun control discussion then I'm perfectly fine with it too.
 
Personally, I would not feel safer if there were more guns about. I've gone back and forth on gun control for a long time, and while I'm generally all for expanding an individual's rights, I think I am more for tightening gun control laws. Personally, I would feel safer if everyone had to jump through more hoops in order to get a gun, "good guys" and "bad guys" in all. The thing I'm the most scared of by anyone being able to have a gun is if the "good guys" misrepresent or misunderstand a situation, and hastily operate under their right to defend themselves and thus aggravate a situation. I'm really scared of the general public turning into an emotionally-operated police, I guess. I don't really know if that makes sense, but I would not feel secure walking in a crowd if everyone in that crowd might have a concealed firearm. That scares me. All that happens by increasing the amount of guns is increase the number of misfires and accidental shots from the gun and increase the possibility of a mistaken shooting. More people with guns means more of a chance of someone's emotions getting the better of them, or more of a chance of someone misunderstanding a situation and impulsively opening fire. By making gun control laws more loose, my fear of the bad guys turns into a fear of the general public. I don't think the solution is to increase the number of guns floating around, at all; humans are vessels for emotion, and giving the angrier and more upset emotions a venue to operate their impulsive desires just doesn't seem right to me. I'd be scared of that world.
 
That's a strawman argument, who taught you how to argue? Swimming pools aren't designed to kill people. I'm not saying to remove guns PERIOD, obviously that would never fly in the first place. It should be more DIFFICULT though, that wouldn't hurt. Less guns in the general population isn't a bad thing. No, you could never truly solve the problem of gun violence like you can never solve a lot of problems, but it doesn't hurt to fight.
My apologies, I didn't mean to misrepresent your position, although it didn't help that you were being vague. I completely agree that having less guns probably doesn't hurt. But just because guns are made to kill isn't necessarily a reason that they should be outlawed. Plenty of people buy guns and never kill a single person.

Sorry if I again misrepresent you, I guess I might still not be clear as to what you are trying to say. Incidentally, isn't the first part of your post ad hominem? Just asking, I'm no debate expert.
 
My apologies, I didn't mean to misrepresent your position, although it didn't help that you were being vague. I completely agree that having less guns probably doesn't hurt. But just because guns are made to kill isn't necessarily a reason that they should be outlawed. Plenty of people buy guns and never kill a single person.

Sorry if I again misrepresent you, I guess I might still not be clear as to what you are trying to say. Incidentally, isn't the first part of your post ad hominem? Just asking, I'm no debate expert.
It isn't ad hominem because I'm not attacking you personally and calling you "idiot" or "fucktard", just the argument you made was really bad. Questioning your argumentative ability isn't ad hominem, I told you why that was a bad argument to make. I've studied argumentative logic and I come across arguments like yours quite often, so don't take it to heart. You should fully understand the argument you're making though.

To reiterate: I am not arguing that guns should be outlawed, nor am I foolish enough to ever try to make that argument in a country that has assumed its dominance by force.

"Plenty of people buy guns and never kill a single person" is still not thought out very concisely. The purpose of a gun is to inflict serious mortal harm to things. Whether bought to protect, defend, commit suicide, or commit a mass shooting, its purpose is a constant -- to kill.
 
Am I the only one who thinks it's stupid that so many pro-life people support freedom to own instruments of death?
You're not the only person who's said that but equating the two is pretty stupid. We all know pro-life doesn't mean pro-all-life, just pro-fetal-life. Once you're out of the body no one cares what happens to you. They're just words so they don't get labelled as anti-choice, like pro-choice is the label instead of pro-fetal-death-if-the-woman-so-chooses.

But yeah, it is true that gun control laws don't have that much effect on the crime rate. I think the biggest problem the US has that there seems to be a culture that worships violence against other people, though I won't pretend I understand where that comes from or how to change it. Just compare the homicide rates between the US and other Western countries, the disparity is fairly huge.

That being said, I don't think people having to use knives (which tends to happen after banning/limiting gun ownership) to commit their crimes is a bad thing. If I was unarmed (and most people are, even if you can carry a concealed gun), I'd feel far more comfortable defending myself from a dude with a knife than a dude with a gun, and the ability for someone to go on a killing rampage with a knife is pretty limited. I'd also question the ability of any idiot on the street to take out a mass shooter with their own gun without ending up shooting other people, but who knows.

Ultimately though, I think changing the culture of violence that produces these mass shootings is the best shot at reducing homicides, more than more gun control or less gun control ever could. Only problem is working out what the main causes of this culture are.
 
You're not the only person who's said that but equating the two is pretty stupid. We all know pro-life doesn't mean pro-all-life, just pro-fetal-life. Once you're out of the body no one cares what happens to you. They're just words so they don't get labelled as anti-choice, like pro-choice is the label instead of pro-fetal-death-if-the-woman-so-chooses.
It was a joke.
 
Untrained citizens probably couldn't hit those exposed areas but he wasn't wearing an EOD suit so he wouldn't have just stood still picking people off if there was incoming fire. Even by a citizen shooting in his direction, time is being bought for other people to escape. Also from what I've seen, most states require training with a firearm before a permit is given for carrying. More training is better in my opinion but that's up to the people on an individual basis
The shooter set off tear gas grenades before he started shooting.

I hope you're not suggesting people try to shoot through smoke in a crowded, panicked theater because that's pretty fucking irresponsible.
 
The shooter set off tear gas grenades before he started shooting.

I hope you're not suggesting people try to shoot through smoke in a crowded, panicked theater because that's pretty fucking irresponsible.
I like how this thread turned from being about a mass shooting to gun control to semantics and nitpicking. It's not smoke, it's tear gas. If the shooter could see well enough to pick off individual targets, some person in a given row could aim near the attacker without a civilian getting in the way because of stadium seating
 
I like how this thread turned from being about a mass shooting to gun control to semantics and nitpicking. It's not smoke, it's tear gas. If the shooter could see well enough to pick off individual targets, some person in a given row could aim near the attacker without a civilian getting in the way because of stadium seating
I feel stupid posting thrice but this a really unreasonable assumption.

Variables in the theater that would make this really difficult:

--Fear (anyone in that situation would be incredibly afraid and would have difficulty controlling themselves or their actions unless they are a police officer with many years of combat/emergency experience)
--Other people (are running into you, screaming, being loud, etc)
--Tear gas, and here I'll quote from wikipedia (I don't know what type of grenade James Holmes used and couldn't find anything online -- if someone knows feel free to correct me or edit this post)

"Tear gas works by irritating mucous membranes in the eyes, nose, mouth and lungs, and causes crying, sneezing, coughing, difficulty breathing, pain in the eyes, temporary blindness, etc. "
-- call me crazy, but this makes it difficult to even see or breathe, let alone operate weaponry with any degree of accuracy

--Bullets (small pieces of lethal metal are flying through the frenzied throng of bodies, killing whomever they strike)
--The fact that the gunman is wearing body armor with only several places in which he could potentially be wounded (not discounting the fact that in a theater with 100+ seats and many people moving the chances of hitting another body over the gunman are very very high, and taking into consideration the fact that even if you hit the guy he might not necessarily stop, slow down, it might nick him, etc...)

I was unfortunately not able to find a picture of the seating arrangement in the aurora theater, but "stadium seating" wouldn't be super helpful in all probability -- it would depend on the size of the theater and the slope of the seating, and even with a huge slope, the other factors and the fact that you'd have to be crazy or very very confident in your marksmanship skills to consider fighting over running away make your assumption inane. It's much easier to pick out individual targets (and I'm not even sure the shooter did this...didn't he just spray the crowd?) if you're the one who's doing the attacking (and defense, even with a firearm, is still inhibited by all the above factors).

I realize the argument over the hypotheticals of this scenario is intrinsically stupid and distracting, but I just wanted to assert that "defense" in this case is way more difficult, dangerous, and likely to cause further deaths than you seem to think. Don't complain about the direction the thread's taken -- you referred to the scenario twice and it is essentially a microcosm of the larger argument (i.e. whether looser gun laws give people protection from violence).
 

Ace Emerald

Cyclic, lunar, metamorphosing
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Top Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
Which brings us to the big question: is it better to try and (civilly) argue out important issues in order to all try and come to a higher understanding, or should we just pretend like they don't exist?
 
I like how this thread turned from being about a mass shooting to gun control to semantics and nitpicking. It's not smoke, it's tear gas. If the shooter could see well enough to pick off individual targets, some person in a given row could aim near the attacker without a civilian getting in the way because of stadium seating
Tear gas is not transparent. You have one target and the shooter has dozens. Some people will try to run for it, getting into your line of sight in unpredictable ways. You also can't shoot from anywhere that's affected by the gas unless you happen to have a mask handy, because that shit burns. That does not give you a lot of time and you're probably in the back, which gives you poorer aim and is where the shooter shot first.

Look, gun-toting vigilantes can probably take care of certain situations, but a well planned massacre isn't one of them: nobody is seriously going to equip themselves to face armor, heavy artillery and tear gas in addition to widespread panic. If it is known that many people carry guns, nutcases will adjust accordingly. A good number of them thrive on killing a lot of people and causing maximal damage. In order to succeed, they will use more tear gas, more explosives, they will protect themselves better, etc. They are not deterrable. It will escalate.
 
This sounds pretty dumb to me. Why wouldn't you want to at least put up more barriers through regulation and at least make it more difficult for someone to obtain a gun that shouldn't have one? I don't think anyone is suggesting that more laws will make assault and murder go away. Would more laws stop things like this completely? No, but if it could help prevent some of them, even slightly, isn't that a good thing? To essentially say "fuck it, don't change anything because it won't help" is ridiculous.
Pretty much this. As an American currently living in Australia it's pretty disappointing to see someone say 'oh, there's nothing you can do bad people will always have guns or find a way to kill people' when it's blatantly false. There is always something that can be done.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top