12 shot dead at movie theater

[hairlesswookiee]

Again, Darwinism would take care of this for us but unfortunately we have too many safety nets (and labels... don't drink this rat poison) set up.

"Man sets his head on fire in a bar bet"

https://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#/video/us/2012/07/24/dnt-ga-man-sets-head-on-fire-wjbf.cnn

 

[DarthNeil]

If I had my way we would have proper parenting/life skills before graduating high school (whatever the equivalent is in other countries). Anyone can have children, but not everyone becomes a true parent.

Not to belabor the point but I think the best way to explain the perception of the gun difference between the US and its neighbour (with a "u") is the helmet laws with motorcycles. I was getting gas yesterday on the US side and five motorcycles pulled in. Not a single person was wearing a helmet (which is their right even though Gary Busey would seem to show us what can happen when a cranium hits pavement). In Canada you HAVE to wear a helmet. It's common sense-- does it infringe upon an individual's freedom of choice? Most definitely... but if the individual won't protect themself then maybe they need a little nudge in that direction.

Just a thought... I don't hate the US. Just one way of seeing the difference between two countries that are so similar in almost 95% of their way of living.

 

[hairlesswookiee]

Yes, I also shake my head at motorcyclists....especially when I see them riding around with their helmet on the seat instead of their heads. I asked one of my co-workers that rides on the weekends, and he said that you're only required to own one not wear it. IMO, it makes no difference to me because I'm sure if you get in an accident you're pretty much screwed anyways.

 

[csi]

csi, some good points there but the IRA stuff is a bit misleading. When Texas wants to become independent and Washington won't let them with the US military called in to essentially occupy Texas then we might see some equivalent statistics...

So if the IRA sets off a bomb that kills a bunch of people thats not considered a problem, but a kid with guns in the US killing people is. Gotcha.

bottom line there are mass killings all over the world, not just here in the US. If someone wants to kill a bunch of people they can find a way to do it. You can choose to ignore all the other mass killings in the world and only focus on the ones in the US if you wish. You can ignore all the people in the world that are currently oppressed by governments that control all the guns if you want, and stick with the claim that regular people don't need guns. You can give me statistics of all the people in the world who have not been a victim of a crime, but that won't magically get rid of all the people who have. Bury your head in the sand and stick with the notion that the US is the wild wild west, even though actually statistics prove its much safer that most other places in the world. That's your right! At least it is if you live in a country that allows its citizens to have right.

 

[csi]

Not to belabor the point but I think the best way to explain the perception of the gun difference between the US and its neighbour (with a "u") is the helmet laws with motorcycles. I was getting gas yesterday on the US side and five motorcycles pulled in. Not a single person was wearing a helmet (which is their right even though Gary Busey would seem to show us what can happen when a cranium hits pavement). In Canada you HAVE to wear a helmet. It's common sense-- does it infringe upon an individual's freedom of choice? Most definitely... but if the individual won't protect themself then maybe they need a little nudge in that direction.

Just a thought... I don't hate the US. Just one way of seeing the difference between two countries that are so similar in almost 95% of their way of living.

maybe they need a little nudge in the other direction

 

[Darth Cruel]

I have made many valid points, we have not had one mass shooting since we brought in tough gun legislation and the statistics I provided above. The funny thing is I have not heard one shred of proof from any of the pro-gun guys in this thread to suggest it wouldn't help! I am to simply take the word of a gun enthusiast on a figures forum that tougher gun laws wouldn't help in these situations?

All I know is that if I was American I would want my kids to grow up in the safest environment possible and a place where guns run rampant is not safe place in my opinion. I would like to know that my kids could go to the movies without fear of being shot.

My suggestion was to simply limit the supply of high powered/capacity weapons but I know this will never happen because the NRA is way too powerful. Unfortunately maybe after a few more incidents like this it will happen.

I would really like to hear your theory on how to stop these mass shootings or are you just willing to accept this as a part of American life and label them a natural disaster?

I do not depend on statistics as there are many variables that go in to creating them. Statistics are fringe information that do not apply to issues they are used to support once they are dissected most of the time. Statistics are for politicians who can not actually prove their points so they want to color their argument and make it look pretty on the outside while changing nothing about the truth of it on the inside. And if I were to argue statistics I would tell you that the United States attempted an assault weapons ban for ten years and allowed it to expire because the statistics showed that it made no substantial difference. And I would tell you that the vastly smaller and tight-knit nature of the Australian population plays a vital part in your statistics such that I would bet that if your government opened the floodgates on guns in your nation...your gun violence statistics would not change dramatically either. And guess what, there are areas of the United States where you will find the same thing.

OK, though now I have addressed your fringe information, you still have not made any attempt to address the primary thing I offered for you to address.

Our Government is banned by our constitution from restricting our gun rights.

 

[DarthNeil]

So if the IRA sets off a bomb that kills a bunch of people thats not considered a problem, but a kid with guns in the US killing people is. Gotcha.

bottom line there are mass killings all over the world, not just here in the US. If someone wants to kill a bunch of people they can find a way to do it. You can choose to ignore all the other mass killings in the world and only focus on the ones in the US if you wish. You can ignore all the people in the world that are currently oppressed by governments that control all the guns if you want, and stick with the claim that regular people don't need guns. You can give me statistics of all the people in the world who have not been a victim of a crime, but that won't magically get rid of all the people who have. Bury your head in the sand and stick with the notion that the US is the wild wild west, even though actually statistics prove its much safer that most other places in the world. That's your right! At least it is if you live in a country that allows its citizens to have right.

The IRA were/are a problem. The FLQ were a problem... but the US haven't had an organized (and I don't mean a couple of wackos) group demanding independence have they, in recent decades?

For all intents and purposes the IRA attacks are no different than some of the attacks taking place in Irag right now-- are you going to compare violence in Iraq to violence at home in the US?

 

[Darth Cruel]

Not to belabor the point but I think the best way to explain the perception of the gun difference between the US and its neighbour (with a "u") is the helmet laws with motorcycles. I was getting gas yesterday on the US side and five motorcycles pulled in. Not a single person was wearing a helmet (which is their right even though Gary Busey would seem to show us what can happen when a cranium hits pavement). In Canada you HAVE to wear a helmet. It's common sense-- does it infringe upon an individual's freedom of choice? Most definitely... but if the individual won't protect themself then maybe they need a little nudge in that direction.

Just a thought... I don't hate the US. Just one way of seeing the difference between two countries that are so similar in almost 95% of their way of living.

And if Canada is OK with their government removing their freedom to make that choice...OK. But I am not.

 

[BadMoon]

"Man sets his head on fire in a bar bet"

https://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#/video/us/2012/07/24/dnt-ga-man-sets-head-on-fire-wjbf.cnn

What a bunch of morons.

Now back to the bouncing young lady.

 

[willocrew]

This post is so full of condescending naivete its hilarious. _

1. _The country was founded on simple men who took up arms against a trained armed forces. _Seemed to turn out pretty well for them, don't see why it couldn't again if needed to be.

This is just conjecture really. We are living in a different world. Maybe you're right. But you could also be wrong.

2. _The if it gets bad everyone is in trouble line has got the be the stupidest thing I have ever read. _So if it gets bad your just going to pack it in and give up. _Great, get the hell out of the way while I fight for me freedom. _

You have missed the point entirely. I am not saying we should "pack it in". I'm just suggesting that if the entire nation descends into anarchy, we will all be in trouble and maybe instead of being so fixated on your right to bear arms, why not consider the preventative measures?

3. _I don't know if you have checked lately but our Constitutional safeguards are slowly getting eroded. _I also find it ironic you want to use Constitutional Safeguards as your defense for destroying the 2nd Amendment _

Yes. You may argue that some of your constitutional rights as enshrined in your bill of rights are being eroded over the years like freedom of religion where your courts have ended up using it as a double edged sword to preserve freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion. But please take note that your American constitutional safeguards are NOT being eroded. The constitution doesn't just contain the bill of rights. It also sets out the framework for your system of democratic government. It sets out the checks and balances and the administration of the judiciary, executive and legislature. These things are set in stone and cannot be changed easily. These are your constitutional safeguards that preserves the democratic system of government. And in order for these safeguards to work, people have to respect the rule of law. Do you understand what the rule of law is? If people do not respect the rule of law then we can throw the constitution out of the window because it's just a bunch of papers.

If you want to bear arms for recreation fine. But don't make it political. The whole political movement for gun rights lobbying is rooted in this idea of anarchy and it spits in the face of the rule of law.

4. _When was the last time you saw a Government protest here in the US with guns? _Seems your the one trying to use rhetoric in a desperate attempt to seem smarter then everyone else. _

Irrelevant personal attack won't win you any arguments.

5. _You know why African Warlords are able to have so much power and cut a swath of destruction through their country? _Because they have all the guns. _Do you really think everyday African people would just sit back and take it if they were well armed? Probably the dumbest thing I have read in this thread.

So if the poor victims can get hold of guns then they can fight back? Wait...actually that's already happening. Have you heard of warring factions in Somalia and south Sudan? When everyone thinks they can let guns do the talking all is lost! You may say oh but I am noble I won't use my guns to take advantage of my weak neighbour's. But everyone says that don't they.

They have a gun, you have a gun, let's all fight it out..ooh look an unarmed group, let's plunder. Wheres the productivity in all that?

Replies added in bold.

 

[DarthNeil]

Yes, I also shake my head at motorcyclists....especially when I see them riding around with their helmet on the seat instead of their heads. I asked one of my co-workers that rides on the weekends, and he said that you're only required to own one not wear it. IMO, it makes no difference to me because I'm sure if you get in an accident you're pretty much screwed anyways.

It's a choice-- weird even if it goes against natural common sense (although many x-games do that now anyway) but again it reflects one culture protecting an individual's rights (maybe to be stupid) while the other (incredibly similar) culture looks to protect the possible idiot from himself.

maybe they need a little nudge in the other direction

You're against motorcycle helmets?

 

[DarthNeil]

And if Canada is OK with their government removing their freedom to make that choice...OK. But I am not.

Exactly... and I believe that's the fundamental difference (or best example) that exists between our two (very cozy) countries.

 

[csi]

The IRA were/are a problem. The FLQ were a problem... but the US haven't had an organized (and I don't mean a couple of wackos) group demanding independence have they, in recent decades?

For all intents and purposes the IRA attacks are no different than some of the attacks taking place in Irag right now-- are you going to compare violence in Iraq to violence at home in the US?

Weren't people in this thread categorizing the US as being the wild wild west and these types of attacks happen all the time? They get sensationalized a whole lot more, but there are just as many nutbags around the world committing more vile acts. When you can fix those mass killings, feel free to come help us with ours.

Replies added in bold.

1. _The country was founded on simple men who took up arms against a trained armed forces. _Seemed to turn out pretty well for them, don't see why it couldn't again if needed to be.

This is just conjecture really. We are living in a different world. Maybe you're right. But you could also be wrong.

Better safe then sorry. If precedent holds that it worked, then there is at least more backing the premise then against it.

2. _The if it gets bad everyone is in trouble line has got the be the stupidest thing I have ever read. _So if it gets bad your just going to pack it in and give up. _Great, get the hell out of the way while I fight for me freedom. _

You have missed the point entirely. I am not saying we should "pack it in". I'm just suggesting that if the entire nation descends into anarchy, we will all be in trouble and maybe instead of being so fixated on your right to bear arms, why not consider the preventative measures?

The two are not mutually exclusive. We continue to work on preventative measures while at the same time continuing to enjoy our right to bear arms.

3. _I don't know if you have checked lately but our Constitutional safeguards are slowly getting eroded. _I also find it ironic you want to use Constitutional Safeguards as your defense for destroying the 2nd Amendment _

Yes. You may argue that some of your constitutional rights as enshrined in your bill of rights are being eroded over the years like freedom of religion where your courts have ended up using it as a double edged sword to preserve freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion. But please take note that your American constitutional safeguards are NOT being eroded. The constitution doesn't just contain the bill of rights. It also sets out the framework for your system of democratic government. It sets out the checks and balances and the administration of the judiciary, executive and legislature. These things are set in stone and cannot be changed easily. These are your constitutional safeguards that preserves the democratic system of government. And in order for these safeguards to work, people have to respect the rule of law. Do you understand what the rule of law is? If people do not respect the rule of law then we can throw the constitution out of the window because it's just a bunch of papers.

I don't know how much you pay attention to politics in America, but branches of our government are already ignoring parts of the Constitution. The Constitution provide for Congress to make the laws and the Executive branch to uphold them, while the Supreme Court decides if the laws are constitutional. The Executive Branch of late had decided is does not wish to enforce the laws passed by Congress that it disagrees with. If our own government isn't respecting the rule of law, can you really assume the rest of the people will? How many riots have we seen over the years? Even the occupy movement has had its issues of ignoring the rule of law. I choose to respect the rule of law, and I am also prepared to deal with those that choose not to should it affect me.

4. _When was the last time you saw a Government protest here in the US with guns? _Seems your the one trying to use rhetoric in a desperate attempt to seem smarter then everyone else. _

Irrelevant personal attack won't win you any arguments.

Maybe not, but the actual point will. We have not had any Government protests in the US with guns. Can't say that about many many countries around the world.

5. _You know why African Warlords are able to have so much power and cut a swath of destruction through their country? _Because they have all the guns. _Do you really think everyday African people would just sit back and take it if they were well armed? Probably the dumbest thing I have read in this thread.

So if the poor victims can get hold of guns then they can fight back? Wait...actually that's already happening. Have you heard of warring factions in Somalia and south Sudan? When everyone thinks they can let guns do the talking all is lost! You may say oh but I am noble I won't use my guns to take advantage of my weak neighbour's. But everyone says that don't they.

Um, yeah. If a victim has a gun they can absolutely fight back. Warring factions have all been armed by the faction leaders with political agendas. Everyday people who want a civil government do not have guns. The warlords are careful to only arm the people that will follow them. Look at Cuba, look at China. Do you think those people enjoy living their lives without any personal liberties? Why don't you think they fight back? Could it be because the government has all the guns? I know a lot of people who have guns and so far know of no one who has taken advantage of a weaker neighbor. I do however know a couple of people who have come to their defense.

 

[csi]

You're against motorcycle helmets?

no, it was sarcasm. But your premise for your country forcing people to wear them is inaccurate. They are not worried that people will kill themselves, they are worried they won't. It is much cheaper for the government to enact laws infringing on people freedom to chose to wear a helmet or not, then to pay the medical expenses of the idiots who choose not to wear them and get into accidents and don't die. Honestly I don't have a problem with the law, but then again I don't drive a motorcycle.

 

[DarthNeil]

Weren't people in this thread categorizing the US as being the wild wild west and these types of attacks happen all the time? They get sensationalized a whole lot more, but there are just as many nutbags around the world committing more vile acts. When you can fix those mass killings, feel free to come help us with ours.

Is your country in a state of war currently (from foreign or domestic)? Was this act (the shooting in Aurora) an act that can be connected to this attack (foreign or domestic)? That would be a key difference in referencing the IRA situation. If Al-Qaeda took up residence in the US and military were setting up checkpoints everywhere and asking for ID to check citizenship, forcing people to prove their identity -- wait, I've just described New Mexico and Arizona (I kid... I kid...).

It's hard having a debate when the statistics are so varied and can be used in such a variety of ways-- but then that's stats for you.

 

[Sweet Rabbit]

They're also the first ones to cry out for our help when ____ hits the fan.

yup...and our phone is the only one ringing

 

[DarthNeil]

yup...and our phone is the only one ringing

When WWII broke out you must have had call waiting.

 

[Darth Cruel]

Is your country in a state of war currently (from foreign or domestic)? Was this act (the shooting in Aurora) an act that can be connected to this attack (foreign or domestic)? That would be a key difference in referencing the IRA situation. If Al-Qaeda took up residence in the US and military were setting up checkpoints everywhere and asking for ID to check citizenship, forcing people to prove their identity -- wait, I've just described New Mexico and Arizona (I kid... I kid...).

It's hard having a debate when the statistics are so varied and can be used in such a variety of ways-- but then that's stats for you.

Very, very true. But if you just break your discussion down to the bare bones...you can work without statistics.

 

[DarthNeil]

Very, very true. But if you just break your discussion down to the bare bones...you can work without statistics.

I think in this instance that the differences are so extreme that it'll be hard for either side to convince the other side to budge-- even an inch.

 

[BadMoon]

I think in this instance that the differences are so extreme that it'll be hard for either side to convince the other side to budge-- even an inch.

Oh it budged a few pages ago.