society sucks, the media is more interested in a story/money/rating then well being of anyone
good thing our society revolves around money and finance yea capitalism
44 people in the US have been awarded the Carnegie Medal for heroism so far in 2012. Selfless acts of heroism are so commonplace it rarely makes national news, when the situation is reversed, then you can say society sucks.
I really hate myself for posting in this thread (I'm not really sure why this thread is even open on Polycount, sorry) but I just wanted to ask a question to those that are in favour of firearm possession:
Most arguments that say there should be LESS gun control or "restricting gun control won't solve anything" cite the fact that you can use these guns for self defence, therefore "evening out the playing field".
How exactly do you justify needing an AR-15 military-style semi-automatic rifle for self defence? That's an honest question, because I personally cannot fathom why any citizen living in the United States or Canada would ever need a weapon of that power...
except when it happens, in you know, Norway or the Netherlands...
You know what is awesome? Owning and shooting guns, but I guess you guys wouldn't know about that if you live in a police state where firearms are heavily restricted. How can you possibly calculate a cost/benefit analysis when you have no fucking clue what you are talking about? Oh that's right, this is the internet and you get to voice you opinions no matter how uninformed they are.
There actually is a Penn & Teller episode on gun control, probably also a bit sensationalist so to say, since well it's a tv-show, but they do show the other side of gun control.
It's not the guns, it's the people.
A sad example of this, is that these things do happen in other country's.
Take Belgium where I live for example, really strict gun control laws (except if you are a hunter, or you are a cop, you aren't gonna have a gun probably),
even laws that don't allow things such as certain knifes.
What happened in in the last years? Some madman (can't think of another word to describe these people) went into a kindergarden, and killed 3 children.
Other incident: someone just started randomly shooting people in public on a clear day on a plaza (don't know if I got the right word, but point is, it was in a public place, clear daylight, with tons of people there).
I'm not really gonna start an argument for or against gun control laws, especially since living here I have very little exposure to that kind of thing.
But I do believe that for these kind of cases strict gun control laws don't stop people like this, if they want to do it, or they want to get a gun, they will get it and do it, gun control laws or not.
dude this shit is f******** insane how can anyone do this really.
I had some thoughts when I was in a movie theater that someone could open fire..
I just don't trust people.
Anyway godbless the people that died that was just trying to have a good time.
I can't even work or do anything right now I'm so depressed and scarred ..... and I wasn't even involved . I can't even imagine what they are going through. Sickening.
Maybe we should find out why it works so well in Switzerland
Switzerland is a small, rich, bank paradise country, with high standard of living, blatently xenophobic i dare to say. You can't compare it to USA, you can't even compare it to any other European country, except Luxembourg maybe or some other fiscal paradise.
I was gonna avoid this thread, but...I have something of an answer for sgtnasty -
No civilian really needs an AR-15. Those that have them usually do simply because they can - because they like guns like other people like cars or computers. I would also like to point out that those are almost NEVER the weapons used in violent crimes. There are some exceptions of course, but most of the time it's a small hand gun or a rifle you can buy at a sports shop.
I live in California - one of the most un-gunowner friendly states. It also has more than it's fair share of gun related violence - this says to me that the gun control doesn't necessarily help.
for every study or statistic you find that says gun control doesn't work you'll find another that says it does. It is a forever unwinnable argument - people who intend to commit violence will do so and if they feel they need a gun to increase their chances they WILL get one. always. Especially if they don't have a rational mindset like the guy in the theater.
and also i'd like to point out something about the second amendment:
it's not for hunting or self defense from criminals.
it is in order for the citizens of the country to maintain the power to have ARMED revolt against the government if it should ever become necessary.
Americans are historically suspicious of the ruling power and that is more and more getting lost in all the rhetoric of political buzz topics.
How exactly do you justify needing an AR-15 military-style semi-automatic rifle for self defence? That's an honest question, because I personally cannot fathom why any citizen living in the United States or Canada would ever need a weapon of that power...
You can justify it simply by the fact that it is our right as Americans under the 2nd amendment of the constitution. The second amendment was put into place to make sure that the government is met with equal force, thus enforcing a fair government. If we have no way to defend our self against a unfair government, Syria, Egypt, Libya for example they can do what they please. But this is beyond the point. The point is the stricter guns laws and disarming America is only going to hurt law biding citizens. Criminals by definition are going to do what they want and find ways of of gathering weapons against a then defenseless population. Plus as a side note, if a robber breaks into my house and finds himself looking down the barrel of say a AK-47, that is going to have a lot more impact on his next decision then if I were holding a .22 pistol.
Remember the AR-15 is just one of 3 different types of weapons that were used. A shot gun and 2 hand guns were also used, I am not sure why everyone is focusing on the AR-15. The focus needs to be on the mental state of the person committing the act. If there were no guns, he would of found others methods to commit this tragic atrocity, setting fire to the place or blowing it up. The fact that weapons were involved I think is besides the point.
the fuq are you guys going to do against an M1 Abrams, even with an ar15? Or is that why you need a Javelin missile in your closet as well?
It may be in the consitution, but the idea that Americas people can rise up and resist its government on any kind of serious physical level is about 100 years out of date.
Simple fact is, if this guy had only had a handgun, he couldnt have shot over 50 people in the time it took for people to flee the cinema and the police to arrive. The fact he had a drum magazine with anything from 50 to 200 hundred rounds in it and a semi auto rifle meant that he could do this. To let anyone without a criminal record wield that level of power is too much in my opinion.
Finally, my thoughts go out to the people that were there. Must have been a nighmarish scenario even for the lucky ones that got out ok.
there's also the fact that the guy was from San Diego. I live in san diego and there is no legal ownership of an assault rifle in this state. at all - ever. so that's how well those laws are working.
"I own a gun in case of someone enters my house and rape my daughter" Does people often enter occupied house to rape children? What are the risks ?
I don't know if you have kids, but I have 3. Whatever the chances it's not worth the risk and it's not something people should be asked to live with.
I don't own a gun.
I'm of the opinion that most home invasions can be avoided just by owning a big dog.
I live in an apartment and i'm not allowed a big dog. I'm to concerned about it because I live in a neighborhood with an almost non-existent violent crime rate.
however:
earlier this yeara man that lived up the road from me was wandering around with a loaded weapon. When somebody confronted him he threatened to shoot them. after that he started shouting and pointing it at everybody nearby - including kids. I herded my family into the back of the house and locked the doors.
thankfully the police talked him down, but on that day I really wished i had a gun. He could have come into my house to escape the police and done whatever he liked.
here's the kicker:
he was a recently retired SWAT sniper and had EVERY right to own that gun under almost ANY state or nation's set of gun laws.
IMO guns aren't the problem - but the people who misuse them. Guns are power in a dangerous situation, plain and simple. I personally believe it's wrong to deny the power to law abiding citizens when criminals will gain that power for themselves regardless.
of course I also doubt that having somebody else in that theater with a gun would have helped if a random moviegoer pulls out a gun in the dark and starts shooting. It's a tragedy and the fault lies on the shooter not on the guns.
*EDIT*
It may be in the consitution, but the idea that Americas people can rise up and resist its government on any kind of serious physical level is about 100 years out of date.
Interviews have been conducted within the military on whether or not soldiers would disobey direct orders if they were told to fire on US citizens. most said they would not shoot.
do i somewhat doubt there would be many tanks involved.
even so - it's more of a mutually assured destruction situation. There would be no more friggin country to govern if they unleashed the full weight of us military force on a people who were going to fight back and die.
it's simply the principle of the thing. the constitution was penned deliberately to keep the governing party from holding all the cards.
I'm typically on the side of the people who don't want to lose their guns. Still, I'm not sure having handguns would've done the people in the theater much good, this dude was crazy prepared.
When I think of guns being used effectively for defense, I typically think of people in the situation like in the video Oniram posted a few pages back. I'm not convinced the theater case best to use in defense of the first amemdment, I think Oniram's video is a much better case.
Simple fact is, if this guy had only had a handgun, he couldnt have shot over 50 people in the time it took for people to flee the cinema and the police to arrive.
No, he probably would have just used a bomb, or started a fire and killed more people instead.
So there are roughly 150,000,000 Americans with guns in their home, and in terms of per capita deaths from gun rampages, we are still a lot lower than Norway. So what exactly is the problem?
It's tragic that sometimes a person goes crazy and kills people but looking at the list, it does seem pretty random, and there are a lot of entries in there where the killer killed more people than this Colorado guy without using firearms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers
this is really really scary. that theater is right down the street from me and i have gone there many times. yes this guy turned out to be a crazy but its due to probably him getting picked on by other people.(thats what the news said and its very likely) This cuntry need to change the law now! nothing good is coming from it.
It may be in the consitution, but the idea that Americas people can rise up and resist its government on any kind of serious physical level is about 100 years out of date.
Simple fact is, if this guy had only had a handgun, he couldnt have shot over 50 people in the time it took for people to flee the cinema and the police to arrive. The fact he had a drum magazine with anything from 50 to 200 hundred rounds in it and a semi auto rifle meant that he could do this. To let anyone without a criminal record wield that level of power is too much in my opinion.
I would say given the current state of our nation/world it is not to far in the future.
So if he killed 5 people with a hand gun would that make it better? You can do mass damage with just a hand gun as well. It takes about 1 second to slide a new clip in plus he had 2 hand guns, so yeah I am sure he could of shot just as man people or more. Not to mention that most of the people who were shot and not killed were hit by shot gun pellets. No one is sure why he decided to leave, he still had ammo. Like I said before, the face that he had a Assault Rifle is very insignificant.
and also i'd like to point out something about the second amendment:
it's not for hunting or self defense from criminals.
it is in order for the citizens of the country to maintain the power to have ARMED revolt against the government if it should ever become necessary.
Americans are historically suspicious of the ruling power and that is more and more getting lost in all the rhetoric of political buzz topics.
I was just saying that most arguments I see that are pro-gun use self defense as the reasoning. I didn't know why that was a part of the constitution until I read this part of your reply. First off, I didn't know that, so it was helpful to learn that bit of info. But really, that seems really archaic...
accept for the fact that I don't understand how he got that many guns of that size into a theater without anybody noticing.
I had heard from a witness on Fox that he had parked his car out behind the theater and had someone hold open the emergency exit for him. Use of the emergency exits is apparently a common enough thing that nobody raised an eyebrow at it. I bet that's probably going to change.
So there are roughly 150,000,000 Americans with guns in their home, and in terms of per capita deaths from gun rampages, we are still a lot lower than Norway. So what exactly is the problem?
So as long as you are lower than Norway it's ok? That's strange logic to me...
I don't think it's an archaic principle that a people aren't forced to be at the mercy of their governments trustworthiness without any means of defending themselves. I'm sure we've all read the news on occasion the last year or so - things aren't realy peaches everywhere lately.
Hell - at this point the US is about one apathetic election from a autocracy under the wallstreet/industrial complex - and i can tell you how much I trust corporate ethics:
My thoughts are out to those affected. This was the first news I heard as I started to work this morning, and there was as much debate in my department as there is in this thread. A disturbing event, and I personally do not know precisely what to make of it.
i believe no one helped him. he bought a ticket himself and went into the theater and then left through an exit proping the the door open. he then returned with everything through the exit door. very very scary and sad
For fuck sake, something like this happens, and you muppets still rush to support every bogan and his granny having a big pile of firearms? One might think that this might be a wake-up call. With folks getting shot up every single day in your fair country that maybe, just maybe things might need to change? No?
I don't think I have the energy for a futile, drawn out argument. Just consider the bloodshed you're implicating yourself in when you're standing in the bathroom trying to wash a spot from your hand.
For fuck sake, something like this happens, and you muppets still rush to support every bogan and his granny having a big pile of firearms? One might think that this might be a wake-up call. With folks getting shot up every single day in your fair country that maybe, just maybe things might need to change? No?
I don't think I have the energy for a futile, drawn out argument. Just consider the bloodshed you're implicating yourself in when you're standing in the bathroom trying to wash a spot from your hand.
I'll give up my guns once the robberies, rapes, beatings, murders, car jackings, kidnappings, hold ups, and religious radicalism stop. Until then I'll keep my guns thanks.
i believe no one helped him. he bought a ticket himself and went into the theater and then left through an exit proping the the door open. he then returned with everything through the exit door. very very scary and sad
^This, but we won't know till the investigation is over, if ever.
I always go to the movies and I noticed after this incident and (probably even before It) that I don't see any security around any movie theaters and this is New York City... That's a huge problem right now as busy as this city can be and one of these retards thinks its a good idea to be a copycat.
I also just came back from watching the movie but was cautious the whole time sitting their that I don't feel like I was able to enjoy It as much with that thought lingering in my head.
To the gun talk:
I don't own one but I sure as hell need one now that everyone else has one, I am shit out of luck if anyone decides to grow a pair and approach this house.
To those crying about people purchasing more think about people like me and what my options are.
What can I do, through books? ... what if their are like 5 of them and they are all packing, I would need an assault rifle cause there is only one of me, or should I give my 56 year old mom a gun to help me.
Their are always reasons to have much more than needed, better to be prepared for big shit than to not be and wish you had something that could save you and your families lives...against people like this.
I also hate to hurt anyone but its them or me and I damn well will fight so that its not me.
i'm not for everybody owning guns. i'm not for taking the guns away. I'm opposed to a tragedy becoming a rallying cry for the two sides to make posters and blanket statements to support their point.
it's been less than a day and already i've seen images for both arguments saying "REMEMBER COLORADO". it's disgusting.
and this is an election year - this horrible, life destroying thing is going to become a buzz topic for a freaking ELECTION CAMPAIGN.
Some sad soul lost himself to whatever it was that tormented him and massacred innocent people. there are only victims in this story and only sadness. The debate over the principles and philosophies of the two opinions is healthy, good and necessary.
saying "this horrible thing happened. look at it, remember it! it affirms MY beliefs on THIS controversial subject that has been a point of argument between men for EVER" is a sad and selfish practice.
For fuck sake, something like this happens, and you muppets still rush to support every bogan and his granny having a big pile of firearms? One might think that this might be a wake-up call. With folks getting shot up every single day in your fair country that maybe, just maybe things might need to change? No?
Some of us artists can also do simple mathematics and research. You could just as well suggest we get rid of movie theaters or Batman -- it would make as much sense.
Keep in mind the largest mass murder event in the US involved box cutters and airplanes...
i'm not for everybody owning guns. i'm not for taking the guns away. I'm opposed to a tragedy becoming a rallying cry for the two sides to make posters and blanket statements to support their point.
it's been less than a day and already i've seen images for both arguments saying "REMEMBER COLORADO". it's disgusting.
and this is an election year - this horrible, life destroying thing is going to become a buzz topic for a freaking ELECTION CAMPAIGN.
Some sad soul lost himself to whatever it was that tormented him and massacred innocent people. there are only victims in this story and only sadness. The debate over the principles and philosophies of the two opinions is healthy, good and necessary.
saying "this horrible thing happened. look at it, remember it! it affirms MY beliefs on THIS controversial subject that has been a point of argument between men for EVER" is a sad and selfish practice.
Good point. I think it's important to at least question the laws. When I read that he purchased these weapons legally, it really shocked me. I thought "what the hell, why was some random dude allowed to buy an assault rifle?!". But apparently some people's reactions were more along the lines of "well, guess I need more guns!" which is even more surprising tbh. Anyways, sorry to hear about what happened.
Oh man I've got to resist the urge to get into this internet argument. As an Australian it's obvious which side I'm bias towards and for some funny reason so many of us want to let Americans know about it...
Same with tipping, and healthcare, and US standardisations.... must resist.
So as long as you are lower than Norway it's ok? That's strange logic to me...
So you imply people should not be allowed to own assault rifles yet countries with strict gun ownership laws have worse outcomes -- still you don't see the logic? Maybe you should take a class in it.
All of you should know better than to waste your time trying to argue about any of this on a art forum. Take this thread for what it is and leave it at that.
What can I do, through books? ... what if their are like 5 of them and they are all packing, I would need an assault rifle cause there is only one of me, or should I give my 56 year old mom a gun to help me.
Their are always reasons to have much more than needed, better to be prepared for big shit than to not be and wish you had something that could save you and your families lives...against people like this.
I also hate to hurt anyone but its them or me and I damn well will fight so that its not me.
Weapons do not work like that, an assault rifle will not nullify their handguns, they will still end up killing you when you've become an apparent threat to them.
All of you should know better than to waste your time trying to argue about any of this on a art forum. Take this thread for what it is and leave it at that.
I don't see the harm in this debate, I havent seen any swearing or name calling. And this is general discussion, the fact that this is an art forum is a moot point, artists have opinions too.
The debate over the principles and philosophies of the two opinions is healthy, good and necessary.
for people in any trade. I think not engaging in the discussion if you feel you have an opinion is paramount to denying yourself the opportunity to expand your knowledge and reasoning.
Sure, nobody is likely to be swayed from there opinion, but that's hardly the point. Understanding and acknowledging the validity of an opposing opinion is just as fruitful to one's life as fully realizing and articulating their own logic to their peers.
it has been a largely healthy discussion and I'm glad of it in the darkness of the situation that started it.
All of you should know better than to waste your time trying to argue about any of this on a art forum. Take this thread for what it is and leave it at that.
Yeah, I shouldn't have said anything, I was just a little upset by this whole business. I try to stay out of these ideological debates no matter how vehemently opposed to my own viewpoint the other side of the argument may be. Ultimately it's a question of cultural upbringing and making glib remarks on an internet forum isn't going to sway anyone's opinion any more than it would in a debate on the existence of God or whether Coke is better than Pepsi.
I wouldn't do it most places - but most of us are adults here. most are educated, rational and there is a lack of trolls. Take the debate where you can get it, it's good for you so long as everybody stays civil. I'm opposed to thinking that certain topics should be avoided in polite conversation - if it comes up, go with it. it makes people uncomfortable to have their opinions challenged, and i think it's largely because they never take the time to fully form them. It is the debate and discussion that allows people to weigh facts and feelings and turn them into a well thought out and informed opinion. Why avoid something so valuable to the your own mind if you have a true interest?
Gun control? Hah! limiting or increasing the amount of guns in the country won't do anything towards addressing the problem. The problem here is figuring out whether psychopaths are born or made. If it's the former, what kind of screening can be done to weed out this behavior? If it's the latter, well, there must be something to eliminate.
For most people, going out and buying a weapon to keep you/your family safe isn't exactly the best idea. The problem is that a lot of times, people with weapons for self-defense don't have the presence of mind to properly use them when shit goes down. Just because you go to your local gun store and get the biggest shiniest cap-buster you can find doesn't mean you're safe. You can't leave that bad boy under a pillow and expect to know what to do when or if something happens. If anything, you become a danger to the very people you're trying to protect. There's also another facet of weapon ownership that few people think of. You've got a weapon, that's great, but are you prepared for your weapon to be used against you?
If one must get a weapon, I strongly suggest training with it.
I'll give up my guns once the robberies, rapes, beatings, murders, car jackings, kidnappings, hold ups, and religious radicalism stop. Until then I'll keep my guns thanks.
most of which happen at... gun point?
you want guns as self defence... against other guns?
Errr, those lists consist almost exclusively of those involving firearms, except for the special lists. That's not really helping your argument.
Edit: Your deliberate abuse of statistics is disgusting. Norway's firearm related homocide rate was higher last year - because of a single event. September 11 indeed did not involve firearms - but it's a single event. Firearms related massacres are not a single event in the USA, they are recurrant.
For fuck sake, something like this happens, and you muppets still rush to support every bogan and his granny having a big pile of firearms? One might think that this might be a wake-up call. With folks getting shot up every single day in your fair country that maybe, just maybe things might need to change? No?
I don't think I have the energy for a futile, drawn out argument. Just consider the bloodshed you're implicating yourself in when you're standing in the bathroom trying to wash a spot from your hand.
Stopping every bogan and his granny having a big pile of firearms will not stop things like this from happening.
Replies
USA SHOULD ban the weapons.
banning weapons doesn't really do much to address the problem.
also bans are pretty in-effective.
44 people in the US have been awarded the Carnegie Medal for heroism so far in 2012. Selfless acts of heroism are so commonplace it rarely makes national news, when the situation is reversed, then you can say society sucks.
Or a videocamera to pirate the movie? ;-)
Either way this is a bad thing.
It happened recently in Norway and Canada
The right to bear arms is in the US constitution so its a big can of worms.
Maybe we should find out why it works so well in Switzerland
Most arguments that say there should be LESS gun control or "restricting gun control won't solve anything" cite the fact that you can use these guns for self defence, therefore "evening out the playing field".
How exactly do you justify needing an AR-15 military-style semi-automatic rifle for self defence? That's an honest question, because I personally cannot fathom why any citizen living in the United States or Canada would ever need a weapon of that power...
except when it happens, in you know, Norway or the Netherlands...
You know what is awesome? Owning and shooting guns, but I guess you guys wouldn't know about that if you live in a police state where firearms are heavily restricted. How can you possibly calculate a cost/benefit analysis when you have no fucking clue what you are talking about? Oh that's right, this is the internet and you get to voice you opinions no matter how uninformed they are.
There actually is a Penn & Teller episode on gun control, probably also a bit sensationalist so to say, since well it's a tv-show, but they do show the other side of gun control.
It's not the guns, it's the people.
A sad example of this, is that these things do happen in other country's.
Take Belgium where I live for example, really strict gun control laws (except if you are a hunter, or you are a cop, you aren't gonna have a gun probably),
even laws that don't allow things such as certain knifes.
What happened in in the last years? Some madman (can't think of another word to describe these people) went into a kindergarden, and killed 3 children.
Other incident: someone just started randomly shooting people in public on a clear day on a plaza (don't know if I got the right word, but point is, it was in a public place, clear daylight, with tons of people there).
I'm not really gonna start an argument for or against gun control laws, especially since living here I have very little exposure to that kind of thing.
But I do believe that for these kind of cases strict gun control laws don't stop people like this, if they want to do it, or they want to get a gun, they will get it and do it, gun control laws or not.
I'm just trying to understand.
I had some thoughts when I was in a movie theater that someone could open fire..
I just don't trust people.
Anyway godbless the people that died that was just trying to have a good time.
Switzerland is a small, rich, bank paradise country, with high standard of living, blatently xenophobic i dare to say. You can't compare it to USA, you can't even compare it to any other European country, except Luxembourg maybe or some other fiscal paradise.
No civilian really needs an AR-15. Those that have them usually do simply because they can - because they like guns like other people like cars or computers. I would also like to point out that those are almost NEVER the weapons used in violent crimes. There are some exceptions of course, but most of the time it's a small hand gun or a rifle you can buy at a sports shop.
I live in California - one of the most un-gunowner friendly states. It also has more than it's fair share of gun related violence - this says to me that the gun control doesn't necessarily help.
for every study or statistic you find that says gun control doesn't work you'll find another that says it does. It is a forever unwinnable argument - people who intend to commit violence will do so and if they feel they need a gun to increase their chances they WILL get one. always. Especially if they don't have a rational mindset like the guy in the theater.
and also i'd like to point out something about the second amendment:
it's not for hunting or self defense from criminals.
it is in order for the citizens of the country to maintain the power to have ARMED revolt against the government if it should ever become necessary.
Americans are historically suspicious of the ruling power and that is more and more getting lost in all the rhetoric of political buzz topics.
You can justify it simply by the fact that it is our right as Americans under the 2nd amendment of the constitution. The second amendment was put into place to make sure that the government is met with equal force, thus enforcing a fair government. If we have no way to defend our self against a unfair government, Syria, Egypt, Libya for example they can do what they please. But this is beyond the point. The point is the stricter guns laws and disarming America is only going to hurt law biding citizens. Criminals by definition are going to do what they want and find ways of of gathering weapons against a then defenseless population. Plus as a side note, if a robber breaks into my house and finds himself looking down the barrel of say a AK-47, that is going to have a lot more impact on his next decision then if I were holding a .22 pistol.
Remember the AR-15 is just one of 3 different types of weapons that were used. A shot gun and 2 hand guns were also used, I am not sure why everyone is focusing on the AR-15. The focus needs to be on the mental state of the person committing the act. If there were no guns, he would of found others methods to commit this tragic atrocity, setting fire to the place or blowing it up. The fact that weapons were involved I think is besides the point.
It may be in the consitution, but the idea that Americas people can rise up and resist its government on any kind of serious physical level is about 100 years out of date.
Simple fact is, if this guy had only had a handgun, he couldnt have shot over 50 people in the time it took for people to flee the cinema and the police to arrive. The fact he had a drum magazine with anything from 50 to 200 hundred rounds in it and a semi auto rifle meant that he could do this. To let anyone without a criminal record wield that level of power is too much in my opinion.
Finally, my thoughts go out to the people that were there. Must have been a nighmarish scenario even for the lucky ones that got out ok.
I don't know if you have kids, but I have 3. Whatever the chances it's not worth the risk and it's not something people should be asked to live with.
I don't own a gun.
I'm of the opinion that most home invasions can be avoided just by owning a big dog.
I live in an apartment and i'm not allowed a big dog. I'm to concerned about it because I live in a neighborhood with an almost non-existent violent crime rate.
however:
earlier this yeara man that lived up the road from me was wandering around with a loaded weapon. When somebody confronted him he threatened to shoot them. after that he started shouting and pointing it at everybody nearby - including kids. I herded my family into the back of the house and locked the doors.
thankfully the police talked him down, but on that day I really wished i had a gun. He could have come into my house to escape the police and done whatever he liked.
here's the kicker:
he was a recently retired SWAT sniper and had EVERY right to own that gun under almost ANY state or nation's set of gun laws.
IMO guns aren't the problem - but the people who misuse them. Guns are power in a dangerous situation, plain and simple. I personally believe it's wrong to deny the power to law abiding citizens when criminals will gain that power for themselves regardless.
of course I also doubt that having somebody else in that theater with a gun would have helped if a random moviegoer pulls out a gun in the dark and starts shooting. It's a tragedy and the fault lies on the shooter not on the guns.
*EDIT*
Interviews have been conducted within the military on whether or not soldiers would disobey direct orders if they were told to fire on US citizens. most said they would not shoot.
do i somewhat doubt there would be many tanks involved.
even so - it's more of a mutually assured destruction situation. There would be no more friggin country to govern if they unleashed the full weight of us military force on a people who were going to fight back and die.
it's simply the principle of the thing. the constitution was penned deliberately to keep the governing party from holding all the cards.
When I think of guns being used effectively for defense, I typically think of people in the situation like in the video Oniram posted a few pages back. I'm not convinced the theater case best to use in defense of the first amemdment, I think Oniram's video is a much better case.
No, he probably would have just used a bomb, or started a fire and killed more people instead.
So there are roughly 150,000,000 Americans with guns in their home, and in terms of per capita deaths from gun rampages, we are still a lot lower than Norway. So what exactly is the problem?
It's tragic that sometimes a person goes crazy and kills people but looking at the list, it does seem pretty random, and there are a lot of entries in there where the killer killed more people than this Colorado guy without using firearms:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers
I would say given the current state of our nation/world it is not to far in the future.
So if he killed 5 people with a hand gun would that make it better? You can do mass damage with just a hand gun as well. It takes about 1 second to slide a new clip in plus he had 2 hand guns, so yeah I am sure he could of shot just as man people or more. Not to mention that most of the people who were shot and not killed were hit by shot gun pellets. No one is sure why he decided to leave, he still had ammo. Like I said before, the face that he had a Assault Rifle is very insignificant.
I was just saying that most arguments I see that are pro-gun use self defense as the reasoning. I didn't know why that was a part of the constitution until I read this part of your reply. First off, I didn't know that, so it was helpful to learn that bit of info. But really, that seems really archaic...
I had heard from a witness on Fox that he had parked his car out behind the theater and had someone hold open the emergency exit for him. Use of the emergency exits is apparently a common enough thing that nobody raised an eyebrow at it. I bet that's probably going to change.
So as long as you are lower than Norway it's ok? That's strange logic to me...
Hell - at this point the US is about one apathetic election from a autocracy under the wallstreet/industrial complex - and i can tell you how much I trust corporate ethics:
0
I don't think I have the energy for a futile, drawn out argument. Just consider the bloodshed you're implicating yourself in when you're standing in the bathroom trying to wash a spot from your hand.
I'll give up my guns once the robberies, rapes, beatings, murders, car jackings, kidnappings, hold ups, and religious radicalism stop. Until then I'll keep my guns thanks.
^This, but we won't know till the investigation is over, if ever.
I always go to the movies and I noticed after this incident and (probably even before It) that I don't see any security around any movie theaters and this is New York City... That's a huge problem right now as busy as this city can be and one of these retards thinks its a good idea to be a copycat.
I also just came back from watching the movie but was cautious the whole time sitting their that I don't feel like I was able to enjoy It as much with that thought lingering in my head.
To the gun talk:
I don't own one but I sure as hell need one now that everyone else has one, I am shit out of luck if anyone decides to grow a pair and approach this house.
To those crying about people purchasing more think about people like me and what my options are.
What can I do, through books? ... what if their are like 5 of them and they are all packing, I would need an assault rifle cause there is only one of me, or should I give my 56 year old mom a gun to help me.
Their are always reasons to have much more than needed, better to be prepared for big shit than to not be and wish you had something that could save you and your families lives...against people like this.
I also hate to hurt anyone but its them or me and I damn well will fight so that its not me.
it's been less than a day and already i've seen images for both arguments saying "REMEMBER COLORADO". it's disgusting.
and this is an election year - this horrible, life destroying thing is going to become a buzz topic for a freaking ELECTION CAMPAIGN.
Some sad soul lost himself to whatever it was that tormented him and massacred innocent people. there are only victims in this story and only sadness. The debate over the principles and philosophies of the two opinions is healthy, good and necessary.
saying "this horrible thing happened. look at it, remember it! it affirms MY beliefs on THIS controversial subject that has been a point of argument between men for EVER" is a sad and selfish practice.
Some of us artists can also do simple mathematics and research. You could just as well suggest we get rid of movie theaters or Batman -- it would make as much sense.
Keep in mind the largest mass murder event in the US involved box cutters and airplanes...
Good point. I think it's important to at least question the laws. When I read that he purchased these weapons legally, it really shocked me. I thought "what the hell, why was some random dude allowed to buy an assault rifle?!". But apparently some people's reactions were more along the lines of "well, guess I need more guns!" which is even more surprising tbh. Anyways, sorry to hear about what happened.
Same with tipping, and healthcare, and US standardisations.... must resist.
So you imply people should not be allowed to own assault rifles yet countries with strict gun ownership laws have worse outcomes -- still you don't see the logic? Maybe you should take a class in it.
Weapons do not work like that, an assault rifle will not nullify their handguns, they will still end up killing you when you've become an apparent threat to them.
I don't see the harm in this debate, I havent seen any swearing or name calling. And this is general discussion, the fact that this is an art forum is a moot point, artists have opinions too.
for people in any trade. I think not engaging in the discussion if you feel you have an opinion is paramount to denying yourself the opportunity to expand your knowledge and reasoning.
Sure, nobody is likely to be swayed from there opinion, but that's hardly the point. Understanding and acknowledging the validity of an opposing opinion is just as fruitful to one's life as fully realizing and articulating their own logic to their peers.
it has been a largely healthy discussion and I'm glad of it in the darkness of the situation that started it.
For most people, going out and buying a weapon to keep you/your family safe isn't exactly the best idea. The problem is that a lot of times, people with weapons for self-defense don't have the presence of mind to properly use them when shit goes down. Just because you go to your local gun store and get the biggest shiniest cap-buster you can find doesn't mean you're safe. You can't leave that bad boy under a pillow and expect to know what to do when or if something happens. If anything, you become a danger to the very people you're trying to protect. There's also another facet of weapon ownership that few people think of. You've got a weapon, that's great, but are you prepared for your weapon to be used against you?
If one must get a weapon, I strongly suggest training with it.
most of which happen at... gun point?
you want guns as self defence... against other guns?
circular logic.
Errr, those lists consist almost exclusively of those involving firearms, except for the special lists. That's not really helping your argument.
Edit: Your deliberate abuse of statistics is disgusting. Norway's firearm related homocide rate was higher last year - because of a single event. September 11 indeed did not involve firearms - but it's a single event. Firearms related massacres are not a single event in the USA, they are recurrant.
maybe give it a go first?
Stopping every bogan and his granny having a big pile of firearms will not stop things like this from happening.
In spite of events like this though, crime in the USA has declined.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/us/24crime.html
Its kind of surprising and baffling. I reckon its normalisation of a species.
Stuff like this sticks out so much because it is so rare now.