The Gun Debate That Will Happen Whether You Like It Or Not

[PointOfViewGun]

July 2012

Batman cinema shooting: US mourning Aurora victims

The US has begun mourning after 12 people were killed and 59 wounded in a shooting at a midnight showing of the new Batman film, the Dark Knight Rises.

A 24 years old apparently a former PhD student at University of Colorado opened fire at people watching the new Batman movie out of the blue wearing full swat gear.

He was carrying one assault weapons, one shotgun and a handgun with him with an additional handgun in his car.

This event will certainly start a new gun debate now that the elections are approaching.

What is your thoughts on this particular incident and on gun laws in general?

December 2012

Oregon mall gunman identified as Jacob Tyler Roberts

Police have identified the gunman who killed two people and injured one during a shooting at a shopping mall near Portland, Oregon.

Jacob Tyler Roberts, 22, armed himself with an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, which jammed during the shooting.

December 2012

'27 dead' in Connecticut primary school shooting

As many as 27 people have been killed, including many children, in a shooting attack at a primary school in the US state of Connecticut, US media say.

At least 18 children are among the dead at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, the Associated Press reported.

[The Unknown General]

Is it known why he did this?

[legate]

Lack of beer and female attention.

[Fluttershy]

gun laws have very little to do with gun crime. Poverty and gangs on the other hand have a big effect on gun crimes.

for fun... Washington D.C vs New Hampshire (my state!)

one of these has the strictest gun laws in the country, one has some of the laxest gun laws. One of these has very low if not the lowest homicide rates in the country, the other has the highest.
can you match them up?

gun laws have very little effect on ggun crime because the people that are committing these crimes, usually arent obtaining weapons legally anyways

[Imperial]

Is it known why he did this?

For the fame.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Well it sounds like he gave up without a fight? If so why the body armour? For and giggles? Its like Anders, full body armour but when the cops show up hands go up in the air.

[Caelius]

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

Would this be an "explosives debate" if he'd tossed a huge bag of C4 in the theater instead?

[Heinz Guderian]

Is it known why he did this?

Some men just want to see the world burn

[PointOfViewGun]

Would this be an "explosives debate" if he'd tossed a huge bag of C4 in the theater instead?

Yes.

[The Unknown General]

Its obvious the guy is mentally unstable, so maybe make it harder for people who are mental cases. Though I doubt anything will change, with Teabaggers around, seeing how they love guns as much as they do god.

[Imperial]

Its obvious the guy is mentally unstable, so maybe make it harder for people who are mental cases.

Make it harder?! I'm pretty sure they don't give away guns to people with mental problems now.

[Yomamashouse]

I think you should be allowed to have a gun for self-defense or for sport, but given how dangerous they are I would vote for strict control. By strict I mean very extensive registry and background checks, as well as a zero-tolerance policy for anyone who has a gun-related crime. A single gun-related mishap, even you charged with threatening someone with it and your rights are irrevocably out the window.

Also, households with small children need to have approved, secure ways of storing them.

[The Unknown General]

Make it harder?! I'm pretty sure they don't give away guns to people with mental problems now.

Well obviously that failed because the guy said he was the Joker.

[Dalarna3]

Jesus, this is going to go well. Now the liberals and European socialists will rush in to yell, "Gun control, gun control, gun control!" All I'm going to say is that if someone had a gun in the theater, the massacre would not have happened.

[Thanatos]

I think you should be allowed to have a gun for self-defense or for sport, but given how dangerous they are I would vote for strict control. By strict I mean very extensive registry and background checks, as well as a zero-tolerance policy for anyone who has a gun-related crime. A single gun-related mishap, even you charged with threatening someone with it and your rights are irrevocably out the window.

Also, households with small children need to have approved, secure ways of storing them.

You act as though these laws aren't already in place, dealing precisely with those issues to a large degree in the manner you have already described.

Coincidentally, many guns that are used in crimes are either stolen from actual gun owners, or were purchased utilizing illicit means, thus circumventing the entire legitimate gun purchasing process altogether, away from the gun laws.

All I'm going to say is that if someone had a gun in the theater, the massacre would not have happened.

You cannot definitively know that. There might be a higher chance of somebody stopping the shooter, but given that teargas was deployed by the shooter, not to mention that for the first few seconds people thought it was a publicity stunt in a very dark theater, this seems somewhat unlikely. At best, there is a slightly higher chance. At worst, more innocent people get shot because the man holding the gun firing back cannot shoot right, or he is disoriented, or people run in the line of fire, or he cannot see well enough.

[Confederate Jeb]

We already have a thread for this.

Voted as little gun control as possible. If someone is going to commit a crime with a gun, they aren't going to let gun laws stop them. Laws preventing access to guns only hurt the citizenry.

[PointOfViewGun]

Jesus, this is going to go well. Now the liberals and Europeans rush in to yell, "Gun control, gun control, gun control!" All I'm going to say is that if someone had a gun in the theater, the massacre would not have happened.

That's simply not true.

We already have a thread for this.

You have a "thread" about the incident only that would be shut down in the D&D due to inadequate OP.

[The Unknown General]

Jesus, this is going to go well. Now the liberals and European socialists will rush in to yell, "Gun control, gun control, gun control!" All I'm going to say is that if someone had a gun in the theater, the massacre would not have happened.

Teabagger? Teabagger.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Jesus, this is going to go well. Now the liberals and European socialists will rush in to yell, "Gun control, gun control, gun control!" All I'm going to say is that if someone had a gun in the theater, the massacre would not have happened.

Why because the shooter would of known or he would of been shot as soon as he walked in? Had it been the former he would of picked a theater without guns. Had it been the later then whats that say about shoot first ask questions later laws?

Oh and a private person armed is just as likely to hit a bunch of random people as he is the killer? You really think he can take aim?


10 people just died and all you can think about is liberals and European Socialists arguing for more gun control? Its a common misconception but Europeans can own guns too.

[Heinz Guderian]

Jesus, this is going to go well. Now the liberals and European socialists will rush in to yell, "Gun control, gun control, gun control!" All I'm going to say is that if someone had a gun in the theater, the massacre would not have happened.

they should arm the ushers. and maybe the ticket sellers just in case the ushers get a bit shooty. best to give a glock to the popcorn sellers too in there is a shootout between the ushers and ticket sellers and no one side is coming out on top.