Will the Colorado Shooting make mandatory bag checks at theaters?

@utotheg38 said:

@.Mistress Redhead. said:

Seriously, after how many mass shootings in the USA now, HOW ARE GUNS STILL ALLOWED FOR ALL!?!?!?!?!? NO offence to Americans, but your government and your country are seriously ridiculous on this matter.

In Australia, after a horrific mass shooting in Tasmania, the government immediately implemented that all semi automatic weapons be handed in and no person would be allowed a license to own one. AFTER ONE INCIDENT! how is America that slow!?!?!

@RazzaTazz said:

@utotheg38: I am sure more details will come out, but from the sounds of it, this was not a spur of the moment thing. He likely planned it, so he would have known which doors were open.

From what I read he told police he came in, bought a ticket then propped open an Exit door and parked out the back so he could get his gear ready, he then threw smoke bombs inside and launched his attack... such pre planning scares the hell out of me.

My country Is bought and owned. :D

For all? Felons aren't allowed to even live in a house that has a gun stored in, much less buy one. I think it should be def. tough to get a gun, rather than just do a background check, but I will never support banning the right to own a gun.

@.Mistress Redhead. said:

Seriously, after how many mass shootings in the USA now, HOW ARE GUNS STILL ALLOWED FOR ALL!?!?!?!?!? NO offence to Americans, but your government and your country are seriously ridiculous on this matter.

In Australia, after a horrific mass shooting in Tasmania, the government immediately implemented that all semi automatic weapons be handed in and no person would be allowed a license to own one. AFTER ONE INCIDENT! how is America that slow!?!?!

@RazzaTazz said:

@utotheg38: I am sure more details will come out, but from the sounds of it, this was not a spur of the moment thing. He likely planned it, so he would have known which doors were open.

From what I read he told police he came in, bought a ticket then propped open an Exit door and parked out the back so he could get his gear ready, he then threw smoke bombs inside and launched his attack... such pre planning scares the hell out of me.

That is a very good point and I'm sure it will be brought up many times in the media run-around this country has with absolutely no result on the subject of keeping people safer.

Oops quoted twice.

lol

@utotheg38: The best security upgrade for the USA would be to get rid of the second amendment to the Constitution.  

Possibly could happen. Unfortunately when anything makes a lot of noise, and this is an extremely horrific and tragic incident, and so its going to make noise, lots of people rush to address it and rush to give opinions and make points about the circumstances or aspects of and just plenty of general discussion and action, and sometimes this can be to sincere effect like prevention or sometimes this can be to insincere effect, as in pushing agendas. Safety and peoples safety is a huge subject and one that unfortunately that can be more about perception of safety sometimes more than actual safety. Now peace of mind is something thats very real as well, so one could suppose instead of having educated and knowledgeable people, having the perception of safety is something worth having, so there's that, but I don't think it can hurt to emphasis on facts and unfortunately given how large and complicated societies are, sometimes bad things will happen, and the solutions and preventions to such bad things won't be as simple as many might suggest. Not just that but studies show that humans develop a disproportionate understanding of how often bad things actually occur based on how they are presented things from the media and news. Studies also show that when people are reminded of their mortality, that despite what they may think, they are typically more prone of thinking irrationally and from emotion and fear, which means they are ripe for exploitation from those who know this, and finally there is also confirmation bias inherent within all of us.  
 
I personally do not think mandatory bag checks are necessary and may create more problems than solve them, but then again I am also ignorant on the ratio of incidents involving violent and deadly actions in movie theaters, as in the objective info. The need for bag checks could be there, but this particular incident would have still happened from what I know of it. I do know that life can be pretty hard and that many societies structurally are more likely to provide conditions for individuals to be able to cause such damage, and so my preference will always be there in trying to address the problem before its a problem. Naturally thats easier said than done, but for some reason some peoples ideologies and politics tend to become a factor, because you know, its way more important being right right?              

@Lvenger said:

@PsychoKnights said:

Soooooo many flaws in your statements.

First, "the death penalty solves nothing." Really? Do you know that criminals that have been executed have a zero percent recidivism rate? Shocking, I know. Therefore, if your goal is to make sure someone does not commit crime, then it is a fair, nay, the best solution.

Second, "it's the easy way out." Perhaps you would kill yourself before being imprisoned (I doubt it, but maybe), but it is certainly not preferable to most criminals. Need proof? Most lifers don't commit suicide. Therefore, it does deter crime.

Third, "All it does is make us feel better." It's not about feeling better, it is about justice. An eye for an eye. You steal something, you pay for it. You kill, you should die. Sorry, correction. You murder, you should die. When you commit crimes, you give up your rights. When you commit the ultimate crime, you give up your ultimate right to life. Not only is it the only just method (and a surefire way to discourage murder), it is also fair.

There are many flaws in your statements too:

Countless statistics on the matter show that the death penalty does not deter any future murders or atrocious crimes. Killing one murderer if we're thinking from your perspective is a short term solution. It does not work in the long time.

Yes it is the easy way out. It's adopting a murderer's approach to dealing with murderers. Killing is killing no matter for what cause it's done for.

Justice is about making sure a criminal is locked up and is not a threat to society ever again. An eye for an eye is a poor way for a justice system to lead by. As Gandhi said, "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." It is not fair in the slightest. Life is something no human should have the right to take away nor should any criminal be denied basic human rights. They are still human and deserve to be treated as such. Though no special treatment at all for certain. Humanity has developed a better way to live and it is up to us to adhere to those standards. The death penalty is not justice in the slightest.

There are studies on both sides of the death penalty preventing crime. Here is a study that says it does. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,280215,00.html Personally, I like a little study called common sense. If you asked criminals who would they rather attempt to rape, an armed woman or an unarmed woman, I'm guessing that all of them would go for the unarmed woman. Why? People don't want to die, and death is discourages their crime. It's common sense. Also, what do you mean by, " your perspective is a short term solution. It does not work in the long time." Those that are dead tend to stay dead.

You seem to think there is no difference between murder and killing. There is a HUGE difference, but rather than explain it, let me see how far gone you are. Let's say somebody breaks into my house and kills my wife before I can react. The guy then threatens me. I shoot him. In your view, since you seem to think that all killing is murder, you believe we are both equally guilty of crimes and should face equal punishment. Is that correct? If not, then you are agreeing that there is a huge difference between murder and killing.

No, justice in my view is about making sure the scales are balanced. Now, I do believe mercy should play a role (such as in manslaughter cases), but there is no mercy needed for a cold blooded murderer. Ghandi may have had many good ideas and poetic tongue, but that particular saying of his is idiotic in general and simply non-factual on a surface and literal level. An eye for an eye does not leave the whole world blind. It leaves the victim blind (who would be blinded in the crime in the first place) and the criminal blind (who had it coming). Actually, since we are saying an eye for an eye, it doesn't even leave them blind since they would still have another eye. Regardless, not everyone is hurt by my idea of justice...just the criminals.

"nor should any criminal be denied basic human rights." Of course they should, and you agree with me. Didn't you say earlier that life imprisonment accomplishes the same thing as the death penalty? Isn't life liberty and the pursuit of happiness (or property as it was originally written by Jefferson) the basic human rights stated in the Declaration of Independence? By putting someone in prison who committed a crime, you are already agreeing that criminals give up their rights of liberty, happiness, and property. Therefore, you are wrong. You lose your rights when you commit crimes.

@Lunacyde said:

I should have said "The death penalty does nothing that life in prison doesn't". Lifers also have a zero percent recidivism rate.

Are you kidding me? Despite our best efforts suicide is a MAJOR problem in prisons across the U.S.

No it's retribution, not justice. Justice is about balance. Killing him does not provide justice, nothing we can humanly do can provide justice.

Not true. Lifers often commit crimes in prison...even murder. There is also the slight chance of escape, but that is very minute.

Suicide may be a major problem, but it is hardly the case that most (or even close to most I'm guessing) lifers commit suicide.

What could be more balanced than taking the life of a murderer? Eye for an eye.

@PsychoKnights: Well actually an eye for an eye wouldn't be balanced seeing how everyone has two eyes and they aren't in the center so it would leave your vision unbalanced.

@Lunacyde said:

@PsychoKnights said:

@RazzaTazz said:

@Lunacyde said:

@RazzaTazz: I think it's sad that people are using this HUMAN tragedy as some sort of impetus for their political ends.

This is another one of those most common misdirects. It is strange though, because if there is a terrorist attack, the knee jerk reaction is to go start a war some place in the Middle East which is also a political end, but people don't bring out the "human tragedy" argument very often unless someone is threatening to take away the guns.

Human tragedies, which is a term I'm not really sure fits this topic, are often used in political situations because they have political implications. For instance, this travesty will be used by proponents of gun control and privacy invasion.

The death of 12 people and injury of numerous others is a tragedy that severely effects the friends and families of those involved. Not sure how it isn't a human tragedy.

Exactly, that is what I am saying. It's sad people haven't even had time to realize what happened and already people are cramming their ideologies down people's throats. Take a minute and really understand what happened here and the loss of human life instead of thinking immediately how it benefits you and your ideals.

I can honestly saying if it was the other way around and somehow this was fuel for protecting gun rights I would not be bringing that up and shoving it down people's throats.

I suppose it is a tragedy. I just dislike using the term tragedy because it is associated with unintentional events. You usually hear tragedy used to describe something like Katrina or cancer in a child or a fatal car wreck, but it seems to discount the hideousness of the murderer's actions to call this a tragedy. That is why I used the term travesty instead. However, I shouldn't have made a deal of it. Tragedy can mean a criminal act. I just don't like that word being used that way, but that is my personal hangup.

If I understand you correctly, you agree that events like this have relevant political ramifications, but you think it is disrespectful to immediately use it as fodder for political issues. I understand what you mean, but I simply don't see a need to give a waiting period before looking at the political implications. I understand what happened as well as anyone can who hasn't been personally involved. Waiting would not change any relevant factors.

@Vortex13 said:

@PsychoKnights: Well actually an eye for an eye wouldn't be balanced seeing how everyone has two eyes and they aren't in the center so it would leave your vision unbalanced.

(facepalm then chuckles) Touche.

@PsychoKnights said:

There are studies on both sides of the death penalty preventing crime. Here is a study that says it does. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,280215,00.html Personally, I like a little study called common sense. If you asked criminals who would they rather attempt to rape, an armed woman or an unarmed woman, I'm guessing that all of them would go for the unarmed woman. Why? People don't want to die, and death is discourages their crime. It's common sense. Also, what do you mean by, " your perspective is a short term solution. It does not work in the long time." Those that are dead tend to stay dead.

Killing in any form cannot be defined as common sense. The Cambridge dictionary definition is as such, "the basic level of practical knowledge and judgment that we all need to help us live in a reasonable and safe way." Killing criminals cannot be justified as a safe way of living. Everyone should be punished for their crimes but just because they never commit the crime again does not make the death penalty a justifiable sentence. What I meant by long term (which I forgot to put in earlier) was that the statistics show it does not deter future murderers from committing their crimes. In the short term it only removes the current murderer and it doesn't have long term viability when it comes to preventing future murders.

@PsychoKnights said:

You seem to think there is no difference between murder and killing. There is a HUGE difference, but rather than explain it, let me see how far gone you are. Let's say somebody breaks into my house and kills my wife before I can react. The guy then threatens me. I shoot him. In your view, since you seem to think that all killing is murder, you believe we are both equally guilty of crimes and should face equal punishment. Is that correct? If not, then you are agreeing that there is a huge difference between murder and killing.

Ah the good old self defense argument. A very interesting ethical discussion. So I don't ramble on, I'll just say that obviously self defense is justified but only in a necessary amount. Police marksman shoot to disarm or incapacitate before they kill someone so if it was possible to incapacitate the murderer, I would do so. Maybe in your example I wound him a bit, cause him some suffering as he's killed my wife, almost lose it but in the end I believe in justice, not retribution so I wouldn't kill him.

@PsychoKnights said:

No, justice in my view is about making sure the scales are balanced. Now, I do believe mercy should play a role (such as in manslaughter cases), but there is no mercy needed for a cold blooded murderer. Ghandi may have had many good ideas and poetic tongue, but that particular saying of his is idiotic in general and simply non-factual on a surface and literal level. An eye for an eye does not leave the whole world blind. It leaves the victim blind (who would be blinded in the crime in the first place) and the criminal blind (who had it coming). Actually, since we are saying an eye for an eye, it doesn't even leave them blind since they would still have another eye. Regardless, not everyone is hurt by my idea of justice...just the criminals

Justice is about balance and fairness but what you're talking about is not fair in the slightest. Mercy always comes into play as life is something we should not take away. I don't speak of this from a "God gave life, God takes life away" I'm an atheist. But life is a small possibility and deserves to be cherished. Everyone is entitled to life and it should not be stripped of them. You really don't understand the meaning of Gandhi's quote though do you? Let me explain it to you. It means that if a life is taken for a life, there would be endless killing where no good will come of it. Everyone will end up getting hurt by an eye for an eye methodology. Killing someone in anything other than self defense isn't right as the situation doesn't call for it. There are other methods of preventing criminals from carrying out future crimes.

@PsychoKnights said:

"nor should any criminal be denied basic human rights." Of course they should, and you agree with me. Didn't you say earlier that life imprisonment accomplishes the same thing as the death penalty? Isn't life liberty and the pursuit of happiness (or property as it was originally written by Jefferson) the basic human rights stated in the Declaration of Independence? By putting someone in prison who committed a crime, you are already agreeing that criminals give up their rights of liberty, happiness, and property. Therefore, you are wrong. You lose your rights when you commit crimes.

OK you've got me here. They lose those basic human rights in prison. However you still do not lose your right to life, to shelter, to food. As I said earlier, life is not something that should be taken away by others. It would be an injustice if the death penalty were reintroduced full scale as it would be sinking down to a level where we use a hypocritical punishment to deal with criminals. You killed someone? Death it is. You're a rapist? Get ready to be raped. You tortured someone? Prepare to be tortured. There's a better way of living and those of us who adhere to it have a duty to treat others in the same way. No matter what they've done.

Over 200 million Americans own guns, how many of those go on violent rampages? Of the rampages we have heard about over the past few years, one was a religious extremist(fort hood), one was mentally unstable(the Arizona political shooting) and I'll bet anyone good money that this guy was mentally unstable as well.A nation wide banning of guns will only accomplish one thing, it will create a black market for guns and street gangs and the mob will be the ones to exploit it. Just look at the "war on drugs", it creates more crime than it prevents. Banning guns will do exactly the same thing.

@foolkiller1 said:

Over 200 million Americans own guns, how many of those go on violent rampages? Of the rampages we have heard about over the past few years, one was a religious extremist(fort hood), one was mentally unstable(the Arizona political shooting) and I'll bet anyone good money that this guy was mentally unstable as well.A nation wide banning of guns will only accomplish one thing, it will create a black market for guns and street gangs and the mob will be the ones to exploit it. Just look at the "war on drugs", it creates more crime than it prevents. Banning guns will do exactly the same thing.

Well said.

@utotheg38: Thank you. I'm mostly a moon knight apologist other than that, I don't post much.

Why are people blaming batman?

@utotheg38: Because they're idiots. People are criticizing Christian Bale for not visiting the kids yet. It's ridiculous.

THe thing is...that he left through the exist door....Aren't those supposed to be locked?

@SandMan_ said:

THe thing is...that he left through the exist door....Aren't those supposed to be locked?

Exactly, WTF? Hopefully we'll get a reason for that other than Incompetence.

@TheAnnihilator said:

@utotheg38: Because they're idiots. People are criticizing Christian Bale for not visiting the kids yet. It's ridiculous.

SMH

@utotheg38 said:

@SandMan_ said:

THe thing is...that he left through the exist door....Aren't those supposed to be locked?

Exactly, WTF? Hopefully we'll get a reason for that other than Incompetence.

@TheAnnihilator said:

@utotheg38: Because they're idiots. People are criticizing Christian Bale for not visiting the kids yet. It's ridiculous.

SMH

Aren't they supposed to make an alarm when you open them? He bought a ticket, exited through the emergency exit but left it propped open, got his stuff, and came back.

Exactly, Do you think they weren't active or maybe the guy knew how to get around that somehow?

@utotheg38: Because they're idiots. People are criticizing Christian Bale for not visiting the kids yet. It's ridiculous.

@utotheg38: @SandMan_:

So those doors actually only go off if they're opened from the outside, and since he left from the inside and left it open, no alarms were sounded.

@BlueLantern1995 said:

@Lvenger They will always have guns...2nd ammendment doesn't do anything to allow shooting sprees, on the contrary in fact. If even 1 person had a gun in the theater the shooter wouldn't have killed anyone...

Really? Like those armed civilians at at the 2011 Tucson Shooting stopped Jared Loughner from killing all those people?

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/14/nation/la-na-zamudio-shooting-20110115

This guy almost killed the wrong person in broad daylight. You would have it so all those people in the dark crowded theater would have guns, how would they know who to shoot? The logical conclusion would be stricter gun laws. Conservatives seem perfectly happy with government intrusions on personal liberty when it comes to fighting terrorism, why should this be any different?

Being Australian we dont get this kind of stuff asoften as you guys do in the States. Asides from the armed forces or the coppers, what doies a normal everyday person NEED with a semiautomati weapon? Why do they take it to the movies????? i feel bad for whats happened...shame idiots spoil stuff for EVeryone!

@foolkiller1 said:

Over 200 million Americans own guns, how many of those go on violent rampages? Of the rampages we have heard about over the past few years, one was a religious extremist(fort hood), one was mentally unstable(the Arizona political shooting) and I'll bet anyone good money that this guy was mentally unstable as well.A nation wide banning of guns will only accomplish one thing, it will create a black market for guns and street gangs and the mob will be the ones to exploit it. Just look at the "war on drugs", it creates more crime than it prevents. Banning guns will do exactly the same thing.

Agreed. Just think of how much quicker all these atrocities could have been stopped if the citizenry were armed rather than simply running away like scared animals.

@Ebbm said:

@BlueLantern1995 said:

@Lvenger They will always have guns...2nd ammendment doesn't do anything to allow shooting sprees, on the contrary in fact. If even 1 person had a gun in the theater the shooter wouldn't have killed anyone...

Really? Like those armed civilians at at the 2011 Tucson Shooting stopped Jared Loughner from killing all those people?

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/14/nation/la-na-zamudio-shooting-20110115

This guy almost killed the wrong person in broad daylight. You would have it so all those people in the dark crowded theater would have guns, how would they know who to shoot? The logical conclusion would be stricter gun laws. Conservatives seem perfectly happy with government intrusions on personal liberty when it comes to fighting terrorism, why should this be any different?

First, liberties should not be taken away for any reason.

Second, I read the article you posted. It did not make your case for you at all. In the instance mentioned, the guy almost made a mistake, but he made the right call. This is an excellent example that civilians CAN be trusted to make the right call in a crisis situation. Also, the criminal shooter was subdued with a gun...his own gun in the hands of a man who wrestled it away.

Guns are a form of power, and all power can be used for good or evil. You are suggesting taking away power from law abiding individuals and giving it to the state and empowering those who would disregard the law. Why would you want to do that?

@PsychoKnights said:

@Ebbm said:

@BlueLantern1995 said:

@Lvenger They will always have guns...2nd ammendment doesn't do anything to allow shooting sprees, on the contrary in fact. If even 1 person had a gun in the theater the shooter wouldn't have killed anyone...

Really? Like those armed civilians at at the 2011 Tucson Shooting stopped Jared Loughner from killing all those people?

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/14/nation/la-na-zamudio-shooting-20110115

This guy almost killed the wrong person in broad daylight. You would have it so all those people in the dark crowded theater would have guns, how would they know who to shoot? The logical conclusion would be stricter gun laws. Conservatives seem perfectly happy with government intrusions on personal liberty when it comes to fighting terrorism, why should this be any different?

First, liberties should not be taken away for any reason.

I made that statement because it seems the people who cheer the loudest for the Second Amendment are the same people who make excuses for the Patriot Act, etc.

Second, I read the article you posted. It did not make your case for you at all. In the instance mentioned, the guy almost made a mistake, but he made the right call. This is an excellent example that civilians CAN be trusted to make the right call in a crisis situation. Also, the criminal shooter was subdued with a gun...his own gun in the hands of a man who wrestled it away.

almost in broad daylight, he could have easily added to the carnage, it was an unarmed bystander that stopped the gunman, the armed guy would have made it worse. Now lets change that scenario. Under your logic everyone would have a gun to protect themselves. In the moments of absolute panic and chaos of shooting that happened in that crowded, dark movie theater, how would all these would be heroes differentiate themselves from the killer? What would stop them from accidentally shooting the wrong person, killing him, either because they mistook them for the gunman or they had bad aim? The scenario you lay out only works if only one other person in the theater had a gun and the skill and calm nerves to use it. Not to mention he would also need to deal with tear gas and the dark and hundreds of panicked people that would be in his way for your scenario to play out perfectly.

Guns are a form of power, and all power can be used for good or evil. You are suggesting taking away power from law abiding individuals and giving it to the state and empowering those who would disregard the law. Why would you want to do that?

The State already has the power, our Defense Department spends more on this "power" than all other countries combined. Any notion that the Second Amendment gives your average civilian power over the State is an illusion. But this is completely besides the point, I don't think guns should be banned, just more heavily regulated. Canada doesn't ban guns, I think like 20% of the population there owns firearms. But they have stricter gun laws, they need to be registered, and it is harder to get guns illegally, etc. The US has 8x more homicides caused by guns than Canada.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/res-rec/comp-eng.htm

I also read a statistic* that a person was more likely to accidentally shoot himself with his own gun than to be in a situation where he/ she would be threatened by a person with a gun.

What do you propose the solution to the rampant amount of gun violence in the US to be if not for stricter gun laws?

* Apparently from a guy called Arthur Kellermann's research.

http://rwjcsp.unc.edu/about/NAC/NAC_kellermann.html

@AweSam said:

@Uno_Oscuro said:

@RazzaTazz said:

@utotheg38: The best security upgrade for the USA would be to get rid of the second amendment to the Constitution.

Taking away the rights to bears arms wouldn't solve the problem at all. Drugs are illegal and yet millions of people get there hands on them easily. People in gangs(most of them anyway) have criminal records(felonies) making it illegal for them to bear arms and yet those gangs have weapons to rival a SWAT team(well not quite), AK's, RPG's, etc. If it was illegal to own firearms this man would have found another way to obtain his weapons, in which case, he would have proceeded with this horrible tragedy anyway. Tighter restrictions and monitoring(although I'm not sure what exactly they would do) is the way to go about, but don't take away our rights.

I live in Canada. Yes, people still find a way to obtain firearms, but they're less likely to use. If caught with one, they get arrested. It would reduce the number of firearms and people willing to use them on the street. Gun violence happens, but it's rare here. I agree, people shouldn't be allowed to bear arms. It's not like prohibition.

I don't think it would do too much slowing down. Gambler made a point on the previous page that they only people that the prohibition of guns would stop is "John and Jane law abiding citizen". Someone like this nutcase, who obviously would have done this regardless, would have obtained his weapons anyway. And would have no bearing on all the illegal weapons already floating around America. Not to mention America is the number one country in the entire world when it comes to citizen/gun ratio, we literally could put up a fight against an invading force along side our fellow men and women in the military through sheer numbers(I'm obviously looking past skill just for the sake of the discussion), how long, and how much money would it take to take back ALL those weapons?

@Uno_Oscuro said:

@AweSam said:

@Uno_Oscuro said:

@RazzaTazz said:

@utotheg38: The best security upgrade for the USA would be to get rid of the second amendment to the Constitution.

Taking away the rights to bears arms wouldn't solve the problem at all. Drugs are illegal and yet millions of people get there hands on them easily. People in gangs(most of them anyway) have criminal records(felonies) making it illegal for them to bear arms and yet those gangs have weapons to rival a SWAT team(well not quite), AK's, RPG's, etc. If it was illegal to own firearms this man would have found another way to obtain his weapons, in which case, he would have proceeded with this horrible tragedy anyway. Tighter restrictions and monitoring(although I'm not sure what exactly they would do) is the way to go about, but don't take away our rights.

I live in Canada. Yes, people still find a way to obtain firearms, but they're less likely to use. If caught with one, they get arrested. It would reduce the number of firearms and people willing to use them on the street. Gun violence happens, but it's rare here. I agree, people shouldn't be allowed to bear arms. It's not like prohibition.

I don't think it would do too much slowing down. Gambler made a point on the previous page that they only people that the prohibition of guns would stop is "John and Jane law abiding citizen". Someone like this nutcase, who obviously would have done this regardless, would have obtained his weapons anyway. And would have no bearing on all the illegal weapons already floating around America. Not to mention America is the number one country in the entire world when it comes to citizen/gun ratio, we literally could put up a fight against an invading force along side our fellow men and women in the military through sheer numbers(I'm obviously looking past skill just for the sake of the discussion), how long, and how much money would it take to take back ALL those weapons?

America's the most powerful country in the world, it should be setting good examples. Canada's been peacekeeping for years, but hardly anyone notices us.

"I made that statement because it seems the people who cheer the loudest for the Second Amendment are the same people who make excuses for the Patriot Act, etc."

That is often the case, but on the other hand, there are a lot of conservatives whose eyes have opened to the horror of government violating the Constitution on both sides of the aisle. I'm a conservative leaning, pro-life Libertarian. I want the government to stick to the Constitution.

"almost in broad daylight, he could have easily added to the carnage, it was an unarmed bystander that stopped the gunman, the armed guy would have made it worse."

He could have. He didn't. If you are saying that guns should be more heavily regulated because a mistake could be made with them, then why allow anybody to have guns? Why should cops have guns? If they had entered the convenience store they could have easily shot the wrong guy. In the movie theater, they could have easily shot the wrong. guy.

"Under your logic everyone would have a gun to protect themselves."

(buzzer sound) Wroooong! Everyone who wants a gun would have one. That would be a considerably smaller part of the population, but it is really not relevant. Just pointing out the mistake.

"In the moments of absolute panic and chaos of shooting that happened in that crowded, dark movie theater, how would all these would be heroes differentiate themselves from the killer? What would stop them from accidentally shooting the wrong person, killing him, either because they mistook them for the gunman or they had bad aim? The scenario you lay out only works if only one other person in the theater had a gun and the skill and calm nerves to use it. Not to mention he would also need to deal with tear gas and the dark and hundreds of panicked people that would be in his way for your scenario to play out perfectly."

As I already mentioned, there is no difference in the average citizen having a gun in this situation and a police officer having a gun in this situation. Now, you are going to say that there is a difference because police officers are trained. Well, yes, this is true, but honestly, police officers have very little training in combat. I've seen the accuracy test given to police officers, and you could probably pass it even if you had never shot a gun before in your life. We all know the many, many stories of police officers shooting someone reaching for a cel phone. The average cop does not have significant training for combat. Furthermore, in a perfect world, civilians would be trained. We teach students about their first amendment rights in school, why not teach them about their second amendment rights (under strict supervision obviously. Also on this note, I have no problem restricting gun carrying rights until adulthood. You don't get your right to vote until you are eighteen. You shouldn't have the right to carry a concealed gun until then either)? It would take at most a few days to give students the same training as police officers.

"The State already has the power, our Defense Department spends more on this "power" than all other countries combined. Any notion that the Second Amendment gives your average civilian power over the State is an illusion."

I can easily prove without a shadow of a doubt that the Second Amendment was meant to give every free man the right to carry firearms. Before I do that though, please tell me if that matters to you because if the Constitution holds no weight with you, then I would be wasting my time pointing out the truth, and we would have a completely different issue to discuss.

"But this is completely besides the point, I don't think guns should be banned, just more heavily regulated."

How would they be more heavily regulated? Already in most places, you cannot carry a loaded gun in your car, you cannot have a gun anywhere in your car except your trunk, you cannot wear a gun openly in public or it is considered "terroristic threatening," you cannot wear a gun in secret without a license (a license you have to pay for to have the privilege of accessing your second amendment rights), and even if you do have a license, there are all sorts of places you are not allowed to take it such as schools and government buildings, in many big cities, you can't have a gun at all, and in your own house if someone breaks in, you are not allowed to shoot the person until you retreat to the furthest room of your house and wait to shoot until you are physically threatened. If you hear your wife being raped in the room next door, you are supposed to let it go. How the Hell should we regulate guns further? They are already practically useless in most places!

"Canada doesn't ban guns, I think like 20% of the population there owns firearms. But they have stricter gun laws, they need to be registered, and it is harder to get guns illegally, etc. The US has 8x more homicides caused by guns than Canada."

I'll just take all this at face value because I've already spend about forty-five minutes replying to you, and I don't feel like doing a half hour's research on Canadian crime statistics and gun laws. Maybe later. So, for the moment, let's assume that is all true. I thought you did not agree in violating the Constitution and violating personal freedoms in exchange for greater security. Isn't that why you object to the Patriot Act? There is that famous quote by (I believe) Benjamin Franklin that says something to the effect of, "Those that are willing to trade liberty for security deserve neither and will lose both." What is the difference in invading someone's privacy to control guns and invading someone's privacy to stop terrorism? They are both good goals with bad means. The ends don't justify the means in my book.

"I also read a statistic* that a person was more likely to accidentally shoot himself with his own gun than to be in a situation where he/ she would be threatened by a person with a gun."

Interesting idea, but not particularly relevant. Remember, you don't want to ban guns anyway so those people will still be shooting themselves in the leg. Furthermore, if somebody broke into my home unarmed, I would shoot them just the same. I'm not going wait around to see if they are carrying something and endanger my life further. Point being, guns can be used in defense even when the other person is not armed, so that statistic (which may or may not exist) is probably not reflecting the actual need for guns.

"What do you propose the solution to the rampant amount of gun violence in the US to be if not for stricter gun laws?"

More guns. It is the criminal element who does not care about the law which is committing the crimes against citizens who are usually unarmed. They would think twice if they knew that every potential victim also had a weapon. The criminals are not going to stop getting guns or committing crimes because of stricter gun laws. You know that.

@Lvenger

"Killing in any form cannot be defined as common sense. The Cambridge dictionary definition is as such, "the basic level of practical knowledge and judgment that we all need to help us live in a reasonable and safe way." Killing criminals cannot be justified as a safe way of living. Everyone should be punished for their crimes but just because they never commit the crime again does not make the death penalty a justifiable sentence."

I said that it is common sense that the risk of death is a deterrent against crime not that it was common sense to kill.

"What I meant by long term (which I forgot to put in earlier) was that the statistics show it does not deter future murderers from committing their crimes. In the short term it only removes the current murderer and it doesn't have long term viability when it comes to preventing future murders."

I already provided a link that refutes that, but of course there is data on both sides of the argument. Again, everybody knows that people do not wish to die. Obviously, the death penalty would deter crime. If you disagree, you will have to explain to me the mindset wherein no criminals are concerned about staying alive.

"Ah the good old self defense argument. A very interesting ethical discussion. So I don't ramble on, I'll just say that obviously self defense is justified but only in a necessary amount. Police marksman shoot to disarm or incapacitate before they kill someone so if it was possible to incapacitate the murderer, I would do so. Maybe in your example I wound him a bit, cause him some suffering as he's killed my wife, almost lose it but in the end I believe in justice, not retribution so I wouldn't kill him."

Okay, so you don't believe that all killing is the same since it is justified in your mind if there is no other option. In my view, it is perfectly acceptable to kill anyone that physically threatens you or yours.

"Justice is about balance and fairness but what you're talking about is not fair in the slightest."

A life for a life is perfectly balanced. Who is being treated unfairly in this situation? I would say it much more unfair for citizens to pay for a criminal to live a moderately comfortable life because he killed someone.

"Mercy always comes into play as life is something we should not take away. I don't speak of this from a "God gave life, God takes life away" I'm an atheist. But life is a small possibility and deserves to be cherished."

Not all life has equal value. The life of a murderer is worth nothing. There is no clearer way to demonstrate the sacredness of an innocent life than by destroying those who would end it.

"You really don't understand the meaning of Gandhi's quote though do you? Let me explain it to you. It means that if a life is taken for a life, there would be endless killing where no good will come of it. Everyone will end up getting hurt by an eye for an eye methodology."

I get it. Ghandi was wrong. It is poetic nonsense. An eye for an eye does not lead to endless killing. It leads to the death of murderers. End of story.

"Killing someone in anything other than self defense isn't right as the situation doesn't call for it. There are other methods of preventing criminals from carrying out future crimes."

In your opinion it doesn't call for it. There are no methods more effective or less costly (if we streamlined the whole appeal process).

"OK you've got me here. They lose those basic human rights in prison."

I'm glad we can agree on some things (grins).

"However you still do not lose your right to life, to shelter, to food."

Not for regular crimes, but once you've been convicted of first degree murder, yes, you do, or rather, you should.

"As I said earlier, life is not something that should be taken away by others. It would be an injustice if the death penalty were reintroduced full scale as it would be sinking down to a level where we use a hypocritical punishment to deal with criminals."

It is not hypocritical at all to kill murderers for there is a world of difference between taking rights away from an innocent and taking rights away from a guilty person. You don't having a problem with imprisoning (taking away someone's freedom) a person for kidnapping (taking away someone's freedom), do you?

"You killed someone? Death it is."

Yep.

"You're a rapist? Get ready to be raped."

I don't care in the slightest if a rapist is raped.

"You tortured someone? Prepare to be tortured."

Sounds good.

"There's a better way of living and those of us who adhere to it have a duty to treat others in the same way. No matter what they've done."

I disagree entirely. Those who violate others rights deserve to have the same directed at them. This is justice.

@PsychoKnights: I still disagree with your views strongly but I gather I won't change your mind about the matter. Better to leave things as you are.

@Lvenger said:

@PsychoKnights: I still disagree with your views strongly but I gather I won't change your mind about the matter. Better to leave things as you are.

(long sigh)

Really?

I take all that time to respond to everyone of your points and give lots of good points to back up my view, and you are just going to bail? (growls and then sighs)

Oh well. It's just a sign that you couldn't keep up, but it is still

Very Frustrating!!!

One more liberal defeated. I am Libertarian Man!!! (theme music plays in loudly)

Don't brag you've won nothing. I'm only ending this as according to my parents, there's no point in wasting my effort on people like you. And to be honest I agree with them.

@PsychoKnights:

I actually hope we get metal detectors, or x-ray things... or... something... just no bag checks, I don't want to pay $3 for Junior Mints.

Seriously, though. How messed up do you have to be to orchestrate such a terrible event like this? I hope this guy gets at least life in jail.

@Lvenger said:

Don't brag you've won nothing. I'm only ending this as according to my parents, there's no point in wasting my effort on people like you. And to be honest I agree with them.

@PsychoKnights:

Libertarian Man knows that it can be difficult to compete in the field of ideas. He has seen the Liberal Hoards flee in fear before his mental might many times while claiming victory in their homelands. Tis easier methinks to declare Libertarian Man unworthy of battle rather than test thy mettle against him on the battlefield of ideas. Begone with thee then, fearful Liberal. Libertarian Man does not begrudge thy cowardice for your retreat signals a more clear wrought ineptitude than battle would be likely to reveal for at least in battle thy would prove thyself courageous enough to try and hold your feeble ground where only warriors may proudly stand.

@PsychoKnights: Very well. You're acting far too smug over an issue I care far too much about. You want a response? You got one.

@PsychoKnights said:

I said that it is common sense that the risk of death is a deterrent against crime not that it was common sense to kill.

When North Carolina repealed its death penalty, the number of police homicides did not increase through the lack of the death penalty. In fact the the Connecticut death penalty costs $4 million to maintain annually. So it's a financially costly form of punishment as well as a life costing punishment. Texas has twice the murder rate of Wisconsin, a state that doesn't have the death penalty. Not really much of a deterrent now is it?

@PsychoKnights said:

I already provided a link that refutes that, but of course there is data on both sides of the argument. Again, everybody knows that people do not wish to die. Obviously, the death penalty would deter crime. If you disagree, you will have to explain to me the mindset wherein no criminals are concerned about staying alive.

True but there are also those who do not fear death. Both brave people who are willing to put their lives on the line for whatever reason as well as psychotic maniacs that seem to lack any emotion about dying due to neurological conditions or other factors. I've provided data in the above point for that. Obviously some criminals do fear death but that doesn't make it the right form of punishment. It's cruel and barbaric and does not deserve to be inflicted on any human being.

@PsychoKnights said:

Okay, so you don't believe that all killing is the same since it is justified in your mind if there is no other option. In my view, it is perfectly acceptable to kill anyone that physically threatens you or yours.

I'm not sure what you mean by the last part "that physically threatens you or yours." Do you mean family? In any case I would make sure that I defended my family against anyone who'd threaten it. If needs be I would lay my life on the line for them. However I would not take the assaulter's life unless there was no other way of incapacitating him. A bullet in the legs or arm would be enough to stop the majority of murderers. Unless every other option I had tried failed, I would not take that person's life.

@PsychoKnights said:

A life for a life is perfectly balanced. Who is being treated unfairly in this situation? I would say it much more unfair for citizens to pay for a criminal to live a moderately comfortable life because he killed someone.

A life for a life is not morally correct. It's driven by vengeance and is a brutal process. If the criminal has been captured, there's no need to kill him. Admittedly prisons can be too comfortable for some and the life inside can benefit some inmates. However life imprisonment is not only a more humane, morally correct form of punishment in that it doesn't involve taking a life, it can be downright boring.

@PsychoKnights said:

Not all life has equal value. The life of a murderer is worth nothing. There is no clearer way to demonstrate the sacredness of an innocent life than by destroying those who would end it.

No that merely defiles the life of another human being and shows how easy it is to become like them. The fact that there is no better way to deal with murderers than using their own tactics demonstrates the vicious cycle of an eye for an eye philosophy.

@PsychoKnights said:

I get it. Ghandi was wrong. It is poetic nonsense. An eye for an eye does not lead to endless killing. It leads to the death of murderers. End of story.

That doesn't sound wrong to me in the slightest. It's a ridiculous way of living if the only answer to murder is murder. That is not the way humanity should be living and I'm still surprised that you would think of treating another human being in that way. You're doing the exact same thing to the murderer as they did to the innocent person. How is that killing any better than their killing?

@PsychoKnights said:

In your opinion it doesn't call for it. There are no methods more effective or less costly (if we streamlined the whole appeal process).

Read my first comment. Plus another statistic suggests it costs $4 million per execution compared with $500,00 per prisoner. These executions don't come cheap you know. Prison is a far more financially viable option than the death penalty.

@PsychoKnights said:

Not for regular crimes, but once you've been convicted of first degree murder, yes, you do, or rather, you should.

The death penalty violates the right to life as declared in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It also violates the right not to be subjected to torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment. Furthermore, the death penalty undermines human dignity which is inherent to every human being.

@PsychoKnights said:

It is not hypocritical at all to kill murderers for there is a world of difference between taking rights away from an innocent and taking rights away from a guilty person. You don't having a problem with imprisoning (taking away someone's freedom) a person for kidnapping (taking away someone's freedom), do you?

Yes it is. Suggesting that the answer to a murderer is to kill them themselves is a completely hypocritical punishment. As for the last part, taking away someone's freedom is a much better form of punishment. It is a suitable punishment as it involves a degree of consequence for the criminal's actions and for some is only temporary depending on the crime. In Britain a lot of focus is on rehabilitation of the criminals as well. A loss of freedom is a far more moral and human punishment than a loss of life.

@PsychoKnights said:

"You killed someone? Death it is."

Yep.

"You're a rapist? Get ready to be raped."

I don't care in the slightest if a rapist is raped.

"You tortured someone? Prepare to be tortured."

Sounds good.

What you've said here is just another example of how wrong it is to blindly follow an eye for an eye philosophy. It truly bemuses me as to how you could desire to inflict that kind of suffering on another human being.

@PsychoKnights said:

I disagree entirely. Those who violate others rights deserve to have the same directed at them. This is justice.

And I oppose this with a passion. The rights we have created are for all humans. There deserves to be a punishment for criminals but not the same method as they used on the criminals themselves. What you're talking about is retribution. That is not justice. Justice is about enacting a punishment based on ethics, rationality and equity. Which is why I'm glad we've mostly done away with the medieval punishment of the death penalty.

How's this for standing my ground you self righteous prick?

@Uno_Oscuro: Actually Switzerland has the highest Citizen/gun ratio but that's because once a male 18 years of age he has to serve in the military and has to keep a service weapon at home.

@PsychoKnights: I have to disagree with everything you've said. If you believe a person who kills should be executed then by your own logic executioners should be put to death. You don't seem to understand that what Gandhi meant by his iconic quote is that using violence to combat violence leaves everyone morally blind. Executing a killer doesn't solve anything because it makes the executioner no better than the person they put to death. It takes a stronger man not to kill than to kill. Two wrongs simply don't make a wright because like the great philosopher Lao Tzu said "Violence, even well intentioned, always rebounds upon oneself".

@foolkiller1 said:

Over 200 million Americans own guns, how many of those go on violent rampages? Of the rampages we have heard about over the past few years, one was a religious extremist(fort hood), one was mentally unstable(the Arizona political shooting) and I'll bet anyone good money that this guy was mentally unstable as well.A nation wide banning of guns will only accomplish one thing, it will create a black market for guns and street gangs and the mob will be the ones to exploit it. Just look at the "war on drugs", it creates more crime than it prevents. Banning guns will do exactly the same thing.

I may not like guns but I believe taking away the right to own them would do more damage then good. Look at Prohibition for instance. When that was put into effect more people started drinking simply because they were told they couldn't do it.

@Lvenger

Well, I spent an hour writing you a response, but then I deleted it by accident at the last minute, and I don't feel like spending another hour typing at the moment, so you will have to wait until I get in the mood again.

I saw The Dark Knight Rises yesterday at Regal Cinema and they didn't go any bag checks or any sort. I think certain theatres may do bag checks depending on if the owner wants to or not. (also : awesome movie TDKR!)

@PsychoKnights said:

@Lvenger

Well, I spent an hour writing you a response, but then I deleted it by accident at the last minute, and I don't feel like spending another hour typing at the moment, so you will have to wait until I get in the mood again.

Oh so when I abstain from writing a response, it calls for a ridiculous speech about 'Libertarian Man' and how you're right about the death penalty when it's hardly used as a form of punishment? And when it's your turn for a time out, it's perfectly fine? If I weren't above childish insults, I'd give you a taste of your own medicine. Fortunately I don't see the need to act uncivilly and spout juvenile drivel during a serious debate. It only undermines your argument.

@Lvenger said:

@PsychoKnights said:

@Lvenger

Well, I spent an hour writing you a response, but then I deleted it by accident at the last minute, and I don't feel like spending another hour typing at the moment, so you will have to wait until I get in the mood again.

Oh so when I abstain from writing a response, it calls for a ridiculous speech about 'Libertarian Man' and how you're right about the death penalty when it's hardly used as a form of punishment? And when it's your turn for a time out, it's perfectly fine? If I weren't above childish insults, I'd give you a taste of your own medicine. Fortunately I don't see the need to act uncivilly and spout juvenile drivel during a serious debate. It only undermines your argument.

Libertarian Man was but a jest, young mortal. If thou took offense at my game of words, then I suggest that thou apply thy strength of will to getting overeth it. As for the insult to thy honor, I have meditated on my previous verbal jousts and can only detect one thing I spoke which might be seen as an affront to thy honor. I boasted that thy will to retreat must be built on the foundation of fear of being beaten in verbal combat. If these words be true, then thou wouldst have no right to object, yet thou hast proven my allegations false by thy willingness to return to the battlefield with much noble valor and spirit. If my jests provoked you to reclaim your honor, then methinks thou shouldst thank me for the favor of helping return thy honor.

As for your claim to be above childish slurs, I question of you, what means this p**** thou called me, for though I must be mistaken, I took this as a remark meant to give offense. Furthermore, thou, while retreating from battle, accused me of being mad in the head and incapable of reason. Now, truly, be these the actions of man or child?

Thou speakest of wishing to raise the level of thine argument. I feel not that speaking in higher tongue lowers the argument. Rather, Libertarian Man finds that issuing a challenge yet failing to respond in turn is an act which besmirches the gravity of our topic. Doest not engaging in verbal sparring and then walking away bespeak a disregard for others' time and efforts?

Thou speakest of giving me mine own medicine, yet methinks thou couldst not even if thou so desired. While my barbs are full of wit, thy jabs are but crude words whose true meaning ill beits the conversation. Thou callest me a phallus? How dost this befit the topic?

As for my response, I swear on my honor that it will arrive. To my shame, my message was lost in the perilous pitfalls of net traversal, and Libertarian Man was too foolish to have saved. I only responded now to defend my honor in thy presence and to further jab in a comical manner at the lack of patience. In sincerity, if thou wishest to not hear from Libertarian Man's lips, thou only needst to treat my compatriot PsychoKnights in a manner befitting his dealings with you. However, if thou dost continue to affront the name of Psycho, Libertarian Man will be there to support his friend.

Farewell, and may thy patience and understanding grow in the time between now and when next we meet.

@AweSam said:

@Uno_Oscuro said:

@AweSam said:

@Uno_Oscuro said:

@RazzaTazz said:

@utotheg38: The best security upgrade for the USA would be to get rid of the second amendment to the Constitution.

Taking away the rights to bears arms wouldn't solve the problem at all. Drugs are illegal and yet millions of people get there hands on them easily. People in gangs(most of them anyway) have criminal records(felonies) making it illegal for them to bear arms and yet those gangs have weapons to rival a SWAT team(well not quite), AK's, RPG's, etc. If it was illegal to own firearms this man would have found another way to obtain his weapons, in which case, he would have proceeded with this horrible tragedy anyway. Tighter restrictions and monitoring(although I'm not sure what exactly they would do) is the way to go about, but don't take away our rights.

I live in Canada. Yes, people still find a way to obtain firearms, but they're less likely to use. If caught with one, they get arrested. It would reduce the number of firearms and people willing to use them on the street. Gun violence happens, but it's rare here. I agree, people shouldn't be allowed to bear arms. It's not like prohibition.

I don't think it would do too much slowing down. Gambler made a point on the previous page that they only people that the prohibition of guns would stop is "John and Jane law abiding citizen". Someone like this nutcase, who obviously would have done this regardless, would have obtained his weapons anyway. And would have no bearing on all the illegal weapons already floating around America. Not to mention America is the number one country in the entire world when it comes to citizen/gun ratio, we literally could put up a fight against an invading force along side our fellow men and women in the military through sheer numbers(I'm obviously looking past skill just for the sake of the discussion), how long, and how much money would it take to take back ALL those weapons?

America's the most powerful country in the world, it should be setting good examples. Canada's been peacekeeping for years, but hardly anyone notices us.

They should, but banning guns doesn't solve the problems. Its up to the people to take up that responsibility and unfortunately, a select few aren't, and they ruin it for the ones who do(most do).

@CrimsonAvenger said:

@Uno_Oscuro: Actually Switzerland has the highest Citizen/gun ratio but that's because once a male 18 years of age he has to serve in the military and has to keep a service weapon at home.

I believe you are correct, but I checked my source and America has the most guns per Capita. I believe thats what I was thinking.

@Uno_Oscuro: Wouldn't solve it, but it would help it.

@RazzaTazz said:

@utotheg38: The best security upgrade for the USA would be to get rid of the second amendment to the Constitution.

That would be the worst thing that could ever happen.

@RazzaTazz said:

@utotheg38: The best security upgrade for the USA would be to get rid of the second amendment to the Constitution.

FINALLY SOMEONE SAID IT!

@AweSam said:

@Uno_Oscuro: Wouldn't solve it, but it would help it.

But it would produce more problems, is it really worth it in the long run?

@primepower53 said:

@RazzaTazz said:

@utotheg38: The best security upgrade for the USA would be to get rid of the second amendment to the Constitution.

FINALLY SOMEONE SAID IT!

Yeah, screw the rule of law! It's clear our government would never abuse any power granted to them, so I'm sure they would neeeeeeeeeeeever take advantage of the fact that all the civilians are unarmed. No civilian population has ever had the will of their government enforced by the military. There is no chance of this going wrong.