Well, it’s in the constitution. but a lot of flawed things are in the constitution. There’s an indisputable correlation between the proliferation of guns in this country and the high rate of murder.
Gun advocates would argue that if more of the theater patrons were carrying guns, fewer people would have died.
A high murder rate is a symptom of a high poverty rate, and a high poverty rate is the consequence of having looser immigration policies than most of Europe, and happening to have a large segment of the population who were directly descended from people who only in the last few decades have had the option not to be impoverished.
Also, America doesn’t have one of those stupid ‘guilty until proven innocent’ rules that half of Europe has. We willingly accept the price of higher crime rate in order to prevent innocent people from being convicted.
I’m against private ownership of automatic weapons, but I have nothing against private ownership of handguns. The thing about the 2nd amendment is, when it was drafted they had no idea how much weapon technology would advance in the next 200 years.
This shooting is probably just some depressed individual lashing out against consumerism.
Also, America doesn’t have one of those stupid ‘guilty until proven innocent’ rules that half of Europe has. We willingly accept the price of higher crime rate in order to prevent innocent people from being convicted. Which I believe is a good trade.
The way the other amendments are being eroded, such as right to due process, right to a speedy trial, right to face your accuser, and so on, and the way cameras with facial recognition software are being put up in every public place in the universe, I’m willing to accept the consequences of private gun ownership in order to keep that final hedge against tyranny.
This was a midnight show? And the film is PG-13? And there were young children there like six year olds and infants?? Shouldn’t these children be in bed at this time so they can wake up early the next morning to see Sesame Street?
“A high murder rate is a symptom of a high poverty rate, and a high poverty rate is the consequence of having looser immigration policies than most of Europe…”
The problem with this argument is the U.S. is the richest country in the world. Plus it seems to suggest that the “other” is at fault, it’s not actually a problem of Americans, but of all those that aren’t yet Americans, which is a rather ethnically charged statement seeing as most gun crime is committed by U.S. citizens.
America has a problem with gun murder because guns are so pervasive. Simple.
“I’m willing to accept the consequences of private gun ownership in order to keep that final hedge against tyranny.”
Easy to say so long as you’re not the one being fired upon ;)
Sweden doesn’t outlaw gun ownership outright, but their gun laws are far more specific, comprehensive, and well-reasoned than U.S. gun laws.
Can this possibly be the work of a warped Rush Limbaugh listener taking dittoheadedness to an extreme? Things have come to the low, low point in the US where that is an actual possibility.
…and the US is pretty much the only country where people think that owning implements whose only purpose is to kill or maim is some kind of an inherent right.
Tell that to Switzerland.
Jirin: “Gun advocates would argue that if more of the theater patrons were carrying guns, fewer people would have died.”
They’re probably right about that. Of course in a society that doesn’t think of private gun ownership as a fundamental right, something like this is much less likely to happen.
Re Nathan M:
Huh? Switzerland is a neutral country, has been for years. Invented the cuckoo clock, remember? ;) I would think their international policy of nonviolence would apply to their domestic affairs as well.
If even movie theaters are no longer safe, then the terrorists really have won.
And yeah, why on earth there were 6-year-olds in a midnight showing of The Dark Knight Rises is beyond me. Haven’t seen this one yet, but if it’s at all like its immediate predecessor in this series, then it really isn’t appropriate for children.
Switzerland requires all of its male citizens to serve in the military for two years and when they leave, that same military provides them with an assault weapon to keep in their home, as civilians.
They are neutral, yes, but they are also prepared.
I have far less problem with the right of a parent to bring a six-year-old to a midnight screening of a PG-13 movie than of the right of an American to stock up on materiel before attending a midnight screening of a PG-13 movie..
Nathan M, but the Swiss are probably not holding their rifles expecting to have to use them against some nut at a movie theater. We Americans on the other hand have to worry about such things.
No, they are keeping those weapons in case some insane country decides to invade them. Either way, though, the idea holds: protect yourself.
You don’t have to agree with that course of action or the amendment that gives right to it, but acting like America is the only country with civilians concerned with protecting themselves is just willful ignorance.
Yeah, less gun ownership would lead to less gun crimes.
But, then what do you suggest for women who are forced to live alone in bad neighborhoods?
250 pound man versus 100 pound woman, they both have knives: 250 pound man wins every time.
250 pound man versus 100 pound woman, they both have guns: Could go either way.
If tomorrow, all guns in the country vanished, the break-in rate would skyrocket, and so would the rape rate. A lot of the gun accidents that happen could be prevented by more pervasively mandatory gun safety courses. And if this many people got hurt in this shooting, it must be an automatic weapon, and automatic weapons are illegal.
It is the richest country in the world, but it’s also got very concentrated city populations who feel disenfranchised, don’t get proper education, and feel like crime is the only way they could possibly make enough money to survive. Europe doesn’t have that same issue. (Maybe because their cultural diversity was systematically cleansed a few decades ago?)
And yeah, you can’t talk about income inequality issues without having it be racially charged, that’s unfortunate but true. But it really has nothing to do with race, it’s all about income.
Nathan, the Swiss are not worried about other Swiss, most likely. We, on the other hand, must worry about other Americans. What’s the difference between the two societies that accounts for this?
Jirin, you actually believe that the only thing standing between us and higher rape and burglary rates is guns? What happened to guns don’t kill people, people kill people?
“250 pound man versus 100 pound woman, they both have guns: Could go either way.”
So the solution to crime against women isn’t a systemic change to the culture that values violence and devalues women, but a 50/50 toss-up by arming both of the victim and victimizer?
That’s our solution? Doesn’t that prove the discussion towards guns in the U.S. is inherently warped in a disturbing way?
“It is the richest country in the world, but it’s also got very concentrated city populations who feel disenfranchised, don’t get proper education, and feel like crime is the only way they could possibly make enough money to survive.”
Yeah, and if they had no access to guns that feeling would be vastly different.
“And yeah, you can’t talk about income inequality issues without having it be racially charged, that’s unfortunate but true.”
That’s not actually what I said. I said, “ethnically charged.” You claimed the problem was immigration. But inner-city gun violence is mainly committed by citizens.
The problem we’re having here is…
We’re claiming all the “others” are the problem. It was a right-wing wacko… No, it’s immigrants… No, it’s darker-colored, poverty-stricken, inner-city youths…
It’s not our problem. If only we didn’t have the right-wing… or immigrants… or poverty… or those darker guys…
It’s the “other.” Those people we can’t understand because they’re not actually a part of “us.” Because the “us” can’t have a problem with their thinking on gun ownership, right? So therefore, we don’t actually have to find a solution to the problem because we cannot understand it.
Jirin, he was armed with a shotgun and a handgun from what I heard. However, I see no need for private citizens to own tear gas canisters.
@blue k“This is a bit off topic, and I hope it doesn’t strike people as callous. It shouldn’t have to take something like this at all, but maybe this will slow down the barrage of Hollywood churning out endless superhero movies.”
not callous, just retarded
@Curtis – The issue isn’t why people own guns, but that they have the right to. So yeah, there’s a difference between the two societies, but the fact is that both allow their citizens to own guns and it is important for both societies that this right is upheld.
“The issue isn’t why people own guns, but that they have the right to. So yeah, there’s a difference between the two societies, but the fact is that both allow their citizens to own guns and it is important for both societies that this right is upheld.”
^Exactly what I’m talking about.
It’s not how much thinking goes into the act. It’s not about how much discussion goes into the act. It’s not about how healthy the thought process around the act is.
It’s just the simple fact of the act being allowable. Because the “us” can’t have a problem with their thinking on gun ownership, right?
First and foremost, my response is no different than many other people’s, this is a shocking, saddening, and disgusting tragedy on this nation.
Anyway, I will say, it was a stupid idea to bring a three month year old to a movie theater sure to be packed. A midnight showing nonetheless. Not saying the kid deserved to die, but really, why would you do something like that?
The big question today for a lot of movie fans is how will this impact the freedom to dress up, wear costumes, and bring props into movie theaters? A guy on Reddit brought up a good point, saying that after Columbine, metal detectors weren’t put in every high school. I will say that they will probably a lot stricter on it, especially for the next month or two.
But the freedom to dress up at the movies is the least of people’s concerns today. This is certainly a huge blow to the country and to the families who lost children as young as six.
As of now, twelve dead, thirty-eight wounded.
Nathan, Americans have the individual right to bear guns against each other because a powerful association of gun worshippers, a gun cult, took a Swiss-like right of the people to form militias as a form of civic defense against tyranny and made politicians and the courts turn it into an established religion of gun worship.
It’s not as if the right to bear arms isn’t over 200 years old.
The right to form militias is over 200 years old.
It’s not as if the thinking on that right has changed over those 200+ years.
as someone who lived in switzerland for years, a couple of corrections:
- they did not invent the cuckoo clock
- they have nutters who go on shooting sprees too, as does every society which allows gun ownership
that is all.
Not sure there’s much to be gained here from a protracted rehash of the gun control debate.
“maybe this will slow down the barrage of Hollywood churning out endless superhero movies”
You’re suggesting, I guess, that there’s something about superhero movies (or perhaps Nolan’s Batman films in particular) that makes something like this more likely to happen?