14 people dead at Batman Film Premiere

[xxMATTGxx]

Ten people have been killed in a shooting at a Batman film premiere in the US city of Denver, local media say.

More than 35 people had been injured in the incident, it is reported.

A reporter for the 9News website at the scene says a gunman opened fire at the movie cinema complex in Aurora, where three theatres had a midnight showing of The Dark Knight Rises.

Witnesses said someone wearing a gas mask opened fire and there were also reports of a lot of smoke.

The Swedish Medical Center, which is not the area's main hospital, told the BBC it had received three gunshot victims.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18921492


I know the article says 10 but it was recently tweeted by news sites that it's now around 14 people. R.I.P to those who died.

[sex]

Well that's ironic
But also sad, RIP

[GommeInc]

It's shocking news. It makes you wonder what their point was... it seems slightly planned with the location, event and the gas mask.

[Fifty-Six]

That's sick. Don't know how anybody could let themselves do that. RIP

[Richie]

Wow thats nuts... what a joker. In all seriousness though I don't know why someone would do that, does anyone know if there was anyone famous there or anything?

[Fifty-Six]

Wow thats nuts... what a joker. In all seriousness though I don't know why someone would do that, does anyone know if there was anyone famous there or anything?

Thinking it was just a midnight premier thing.. not a red carpet thing or anything.

[sex]

They opened fire during the gun fight scene at the start! That's so sick

[Stephen]

Maybe they really wanted to meet Christian Bale and thought he'd show up in a batman costume

[Cerys]

Ugh thats just awful. Some people really are sick.


'Eyewitnesses reported that a baby was shot at point blank range.' 'Police sources have told us there are at least 10 bodies inside the cinema, most of them children or teenagers, and one baby.'
If thats true then wow. Catch him/her and lock them up for life.

[dbgtz]

Maybe they really wanted to meet Christian Bale and thought he'd show up in a batman costume

Time and a place.

I don't understand why Americans still believe everyone should have the right to firearms, clearly situations like this and many others could have been prevented if guns were illegal.

[Dean]

Time and a place.

I don't understand why Americans still believe everyone should have the right to firearms, clearly situations like this and many others could have been prevented if guns were illegal.

Even if fire arms were illegal, I'm pretty sure the majority of Americans would still keep them for self defence.

[Cerys]

Even if fire arms were illegal, I'm pretty sure the majority of Americans would still keep them for self defence.

Use a baseball bat for self defence instead then? Atleast they have a chance to run away.

[MKR&*42]

THIS WAS THE STORY I WAS TRYING TO REMEMBER!!!

Horrific incident, such a shame about the entire thing :/ Hope the guy is caught. Harrowing how you realise incidents like this literally can occur anywhere, even whilst you're watching a film >.<

[xxMATTGxx]

The youngest victim of the shooting was just three months old. Some sick people in this world.

[FiftyCal]

Disarming Innocent People Does not protect innocent people. This is why they need to allow open/concealed carry in movie theaters so if there's any people that escaped the mental hospital and decide they want to shoot people, then people that are open carrying would take action right away instead of waiting for cops to arrive while more get slaughtered.

[David]

"The shooting apparently went on for some time," he said.

great response team

[sex]

The police are being praised as being very quick. Some time could be five minutes..

And the youngest victim being three months has been changed to six years old

[Tom]

Whether the child was 3 months old or 6 years old, it's just wrong! For any age it's wrong! It's worse when you think of how it's right at the climax of the film, you're seeing shooting then just get shot yourself? Horrible.

[Succubus]

That's horrid. So many sick people in the world, it's cruel.
RIP to the people that died.

[scottish]

They caught the guy, or at least that's what they're saying on radio apparently 24 year old in the car park of the place with 2 guns

---------- Post added 20-07-2012 at 01:01 PM ----------


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7sIiqq66rk&feature=player_embedded

Phone footage

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9414279/Batman-shooting-at-Denver-cinema-live.html

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/batman-cinema-massacre---denver-1150919

for latest info as well

---------- Post added 20-07-2012 at 01:03 PM ----------

* Police arrested a suspect near to a car behind the movie theatre. He had on him a gas mask, rifle and handgun

* He told police he had explosives at his apartment

[efq]

I'd say what is this world coming to but I think we all know it's gotten ridiculous. It's sickening.

I hope they find the little ***** and hang them.

R.I.P to those who died <3

Edit: I read they caught him?

[dbgtz]

Disarming Innocent People Does not protect innocent people. This is why they need to allow open/concealed carry in movie theaters so if there's any people that escaped the mental hospital and decide they want to shoot people, then people that are open carrying would take action right away instead of waiting for cops to arrive while more get slaughtered.

US firearm murders in 2009 was 9146, the UK equivalent in 2008 was 195. So to solve this problem, you want to ease restrictions on guns...

Here's my source for the statistics: http://www.juancole.com/2011/01/over-9000-murders-by-gun-in-us-39-in-uk.html.

[sex]

US firearm murders in 2009 was 9146, the UK equivalent in 2008 was 195. So to solve this problem, you want to ease restrictions on guns...

Here's my source for the statistics: http://www.juancole.com/2011/01/over-9000-murders-by-gun-in-us-39-in-uk.html.

to be fair when you take it into account in terms of population size the uk has a higher percentage of gun murders.
the figure for the usa seems really low though.

[scottish]

Pretty sure a few years ago it was 5.5 deaths per 100,000 due to murders by gun crime and like 1.1 per 100,000 in UK :P

[dbgtz]

to be fair when you take it into account in terms of population size the uk has a higher percentage of gun murders.
the figure for the usa seems really low though.

No it's not, 195 is taking into account the smaller size of the UK population.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44183000/gif/_44183271_gun_crime203x244.gif

[scottish]

Yeah;

Number of Murders by firearms, Britain, 2008* 39
(equivalent to 195 US murders)


:P

[MKR&*42]

Pretty sure a few years ago it was 5.5 deaths per 100,000 due to murders by gun crime and like 1.1 per 100,000 in UK :P

I have figures from 2000 and not any more recent ones :(. First colum is country, second is the % that own firearms, 3rd is the Firearm homicide rate per 100,000.



England & Wales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England_%26_Wales)[30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence#cite_note-1999_stats-29)
8
0.12




Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland)[30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence#cite_note-1999_stats-29)
29
0.32




United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States)[30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence#cite_note-1999_stats-29)
65
2.97


Idk why Scotland's isn't on there. + I imagine much hasn't changed in 12 years, so it is clearly obvious it is worse in the US.

---

PFft ok didn't see your second post with 2008 stuff nvm!! :P

[sex]

No it's not, 195 is taking into account the smaller size of the UK population.

what? 195 people where murdered. how does that take into account the smaller size of the uk population...
i just worked out the figures you post and got them as a percent of each countries population and the uk one was higher :S idk what your talking about the figure already taking the size into account..

[scottish]

what? 195 people where murdered. how does that take into account the smaller size of the uk population...
i just worked out the figures you post and got them as a percent of each countries population and the uk one was higher :S idk what your talking about the figure already taking the size into account..

39 people were killed

With popular difference that's equivalent of 195 people if we had similar population to USA.

[dbgtz]

what? 195 people where murdered. how does that take into account the smaller size of the uk population...
i just worked out the figures you post and got them as a percent of each countries population and the uk one was higher :S idk what your talking about the figure already taking the size into account..

The UK deaths by firearms were 39, as the UK is around 1/5 the population of the USA, the figure was multiplied by 5.

[Stephen]

Disarming Innocent People Does not protect innocent people. This is why they need to allow open/concealed carry in movie theaters so if there's any people that escaped the mental hospital and decide they want to shoot people, then people that are open carrying would take action right away instead of waiting for cops to arrive while more get slaughtered.

That is the dumbest thing I've read so far today but then again it's the typical dumb thing most americans would say

[scottish]

1:20pm US Media are reporting that the suspect in the Denver Batman shooting is 24-year-old James Holmes.

1:26pm The death toll has now been revised and lowered to 12, as opposed to 14 as previously reported. Aurora Police spokesman Frank Fania told NBC News that 10 of the victims died in the theatre and two died in the hospital.

1:40pm One of the victims killed in the massacre has been named as aspiring sports television presenter Jessica Ghawi.
She sent haunting tweets from inside the cinema minutes before she was shot dead writing: "Movie doesn’t start for 20 minutes!”.

1:45pm Warner Bros has postponed a red carpet premiere scheduled to take place in Paris tonight with cast members.

1:50pm ABC News has reported that they have spoken to the mother of suspect gunman James Holmes.
The woman in San Diego said she was unaware of the shooting, but added: "You have the right person. I need to call the police... I need to fly out to Colorado."

[JerseySafety]

Just read that, thats disgusting. Would hope that would never happen here - glad I'm not going to the premier anymore.

[Stephen]

http://i.imgur.com/gqxpn.png

she didn't even make it to bed :(

[scottish]

yeah https://twitter.com/JessicaRedfield :(

[Stephen]

http://jessicaredfield.wordpress.com/2012/06/05/late-night-thoughts-on-the-eaton-center-shooting/

read that anyone who wants to cry or something

[Eric]

devastating news, why did he wanna do that? this is what happens when you can have firearms

[scottish]

Don't think anyone knows why he done it but based on

"1:50pm ABC News has reported that they have spoken to the mother of suspect gunman James Holmes.
The woman in San Diego said she was unaware of the shooting, but added: "You have the right person. I need to call the police... I need to fly out to Colorado.""

I'm assuming hes psycho.

[efq]

This thread has turned into Maths -criez

It's so sad watching more and more news being unveiled and eyewitness stories..

[xxMATTGxx]

Colorado shooting suspect's apartment is 'booby trapped,' police chief says; working to disarm flammable or explosive material


Explosives appear 'very sophisticated' and police could be at scene 'for hours or days,' Aurora police chief says

https://twitter.com/BreakingNews/

[Seikou]

wow, just wow. it's absolutely disgusting that anyone could do something like that, it makes me so sad. rip to all of those who died :-(

[Stephen]

http://www.blottr.com/sites/default/files/online-warnings-batman-premiere-shooting-allegedly-appear-online-9gag-website.png

[October]

Two of my friends and I nearly went to that theater last night, but instead we opted to just hang out since I had to work early. Really glad we didn't go, I don't want to consider what may have happened to us

[Jarkie]

Just read about this.

Its just why, why and how could someone go on a massacrer to such young people. This world actually makes me feel sick sometimes.

Here is a video of someone getting interviewed about it:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EInAPvlKjn0

[geo]

absolutely disgusting, i don't know how anyone could do that to so many people. :( ugh, there really are some horrible people out here. RIP to those who died, such a shame.

[scottishman123]

I think it is sick how people can do that and what is going on in there head? :@ but R.I.P TO them ten people. :rolleyes:

[Paige.]

I feel sick to my stomach. I just don't understand, like I just can't understand how someone could do this? What happened to him to make him mentally and physically be able to do this.. it's just mind blowing and I can't get my head around it. R.I.P to those who died and I sincerely hope those injured fully recover both mentally and physically.

[iBlueBox]

I feel sick.

Also, does anyone think this will effect the Batman film having a shadowing effect.

As well as being the last of the trilogy, It's going to hard to talk about the success of it, after this event. It'll probably more be known because of these deaths.

[Cerys]

I feel sick.

Also, does anyone think this will effect the Batman film having a shadowing effect.

As well as being the last of the trilogy, It's going to hard to talk about the success of it, after this event. It'll probably more be known because of these deaths.


Totally agree with this.
I think many people in America/perhaps other locations will be paranoid that someone copies this sick man and does the same in their cinema etc.

Once again, RIP to all those.

[Chippiewill]

As well as being the last of the trilogy, It's going to hard to talk about the success of it, after this event. It'll probably more be known because of these deaths.
Doubt it, that's like saying no one will talk about the success of TDK because Heath Ledger killed himself.

Ultimately it's not about the legality of the guns, the UK is actually far more lax on guns than you'd think when you read into it. The main difference is:

a) You can't have concealable guns (i.e. pistols - fun fact, temporary legalisation for Olympic pistol shooting)
b) You can't walk about in public with guns (i.e. You keep them at home, transport them discretely and use them at a gun range only)
c) Fully automatic is off the cards (Not that a fully automatic weapon kills people frequently anyway, far too inaccurate)

Mostly it's about public opinion of guns, in the UK guns are thought of as objects which kill, in America they're objects of sport.

[FiftyCal]

That is the dumbest thing I've read so far today but then again it's the typical dumb thing most americans would say Think of it this way, if innocent civilians were packing with a concealed weapons permit he would of been taken down and would of had WAY less casualties.


US firearm murders in 2009 was 9146, the UK equivalent in 2008 was 195. So to solve this problem, you want to ease restrictions on guns...

Here's my source for the statistics: http://www.juancole.com/2011/01/over-9000-murders-by-gun-in-us-39-in-uk.html. Okay the numbers are different, that still doesn't mean guns should be banned completely, every honest hard working citizen should deserve the right to have a gun to defend and protect in situations like this. We also have a bad habit of locking in murders and not throwing away the key. Matter fact a jail in my town just released 300 Criminals because they ran out of funding from the state, so its those kinds of people that rack up the numbers.

[dbgtz]

Think of it this way, if innocent civilians were packing with a concealed weapons permit he would of been taken down and would of had WAY less casualties.

You could then argue it would cause a slippery slope effect and create a full blown shoot out. You could argue either way, but you would never know unless it's tested.


Okay the numbers are different, that still doesn't mean guns should be banned completely, every honest hard working citizen should deserve the right to have a gun to defend and protect in situations like this. We also have a bad habit of locking in murders and not throwing away the key. Matter fact a jail in my town just released 300 Criminals because they ran out of funding from the state, so its those kinds of people that rack up the numbers.

Situations like this wouldn't have occured if they didn't have guns, or at least these situations would be much less frequent. I think those last 2 sentences just show how moronic your government can be.

[The Don]

You could then argue it would cause a slippery slope effect and create a full blown shoot out. You could argue either way, but you would never know unless it's tested.



Situations like this wouldn't have occured if they didn't have guns, or at least these situations would be much less frequent. I think those last 2 sentences just show how moronic your government can be.


There was a recent case where two armed kids tried to rob a supermarket and a random citizen managed to scare them off with his firearm. Not that i'm suggesting more guns will reduce the problem, just pointing out that in past cases it has prevented more casualties

[Stephen]

Think of it this way, if innocent civilians were packing with a concealed weapons permit he would of been taken down and would of had WAY less casualties.

Okay the numbers are different, that still doesn't mean guns should be banned completely, every honest hard working citizen should deserve the right to have a gun to defend and protect in situations like this. We also have a bad habit of locking in murders and not throwing away the key. Matter fact a jail in my town just released 300 Criminals because they ran out of funding from the state, so its those kinds of people that rack up the numbers.

Hey we all have weapons on us and we're in a dark cinema with tear gas everywhere.. LET'S JUST BLINDLY MASSACRE EVERYONE TO SAVE HIM THE JOB

[karter]

omg this so sad! especially after i read jessica's tweets :(

i hope the infant story is not true! rip all the victims

[efq]

I'm at work, and today some guy came in fully dressed in a Batman costume, I was tempted to have ago at him but I couldn't because of the children :( x

[Absently]

Think of it this way, if innocent civilians were packing with a concealed weapons permit he would of been taken down and would of had WAY less casualties.

Okay the numbers are different, that still doesn't mean guns should be banned completely, every honest hard working citizen should deserve the right to have a gun to defend and protect in situations like this. We also have a bad habit of locking in murders and not throwing away the key. Matter fact a jail in my town just released 300 Criminals because they ran out of funding from the state, so its those kinds of people that rack up the numbers.
Wouldn't that just change our society completely? Imagine growing up and seeing guns everywhere, it kind of drowns out the happiness, doesn't it?

[FlyingJesus]

Disarming Innocent People Does not protect innocent people. This is why they need to allow open/concealed carry in movie theaters so if there's any people that escaped the mental hospital and decide they want to shoot people, then people that are open carrying would take action right away instead of waiting for cops to arrive while more get slaughtered.

If guns are only for self-defence surely it would make more sense to carry a debilitating device of some sort rather than a lethal one, and it's only the presence of weapons that makes further weapons "necessary". Really gun ownership ought to be limited to home & range use, with possession in public places being illegal, especially if live rounds are loaded


to be fair when you take it into account in terms of population size the uk has a higher percentage of gun murders.
the figure for the usa seems really low though.

Even if those figures were total deaths and hadn't been adjusted for population difference, US gun fatalities/US population is 1 in 34,068 and the UK figures come up at 1 in 321,235


Think of it this way, if innocent civilians were packing with a concealed weapons permit he would of been taken down and would of had WAY less casualties.

No think of it THIS way: if guns were not so prevalent and required far more paperwork to get a hold of at all (rather than being able to buy them over the counter along with the weekly shopping) there would be less guns around, and therefore less opportunity for guns to be fired at people. You're also assuming that all civilians are capable of adopting a killing mentality, and of being sufficiently proficient with firearms to stop an attacker without harming anyone else or getting shot themselves


We also have a bad habit of locking in murders and not throwing away the key. Matter fact a jail in my town just released 300 Criminals because they ran out of funding from the state, so its those kinds of people that rack up the numbers.

This is because Western governments spend so much locking up people for non-violent and victimless crimes (mostly "war on drugs" type stuff), which leaves fewer resources and prison spaces to deal with those who really should be in there. While I don't think murderers should be released - and certainly not just to free up a bit of space - the biggest mass shootings that I can think of tend to be committed by people with little to no criminal history whatsoever, so clearly it's the weapon availability and improper regulation that's the problem rather than some big criminal conspiracy

[Mikey]

I heard about this when I was on my phone yesterday. It's absolutely horrible, why do that? :S

R.I.P to the people who died :[

[Stephen]

I'm at work, and today some guy came in fully dressed in a Batman costume, I was tempted to have ago at him but I couldn't because of the children :( x

Why would you have ago at someone dressed as batman

[efq]

I personally think it's way to early to be wearing something like that, I see it as being very insensitive, and seeing as it was a 25 year old aged man, and not just a kid dressed as batman.
Why would you have ago at someone dressed as batman

[Mr.L.Darragh]

It's so sad, Jessica 'Redfield' was a friend of Countryboy96, a WH employee. She was such a lively person, and its sad to see her pass. If you want you can send your wishes to @Countryb96 I'm sure he'll be happy to hear it. :'[

[Chippiewill]

I personally think it's way to early to be wearing something like that, I see it as being very insensitive, and seeing as it was a 25 year old aged man, and not just a kid dressed as batman.
It's not like it was the film that killed them it was a guy, batman itself is irrelevant.

[Stephen]

I personally think it's way to early to be wearing something like that, I see it as being very insensitive, and seeing as it was a 25 year old aged man, and not just a kid dressed as batman.

So because that happened it means the whole world has to wait a few months before they can dress up as a batman character

[HotelUser]

Colorado allows the death sentence and for the moment I'm happy to see that the death penalty is on the table. I hope he cuts no deals, and finds a needle in his arm.

[sex]

Colorado allows the death sentence and for the moment I'm happy to see that the death penalty is on the table. I hope he cuts no deals, and finds a needle in his arm.

probably going to play the mental health card

[-:Undertaker:-]

Time and a place.

I don't understand why Americans still believe everyone should have the right to firearms, clearly situations like this and many others could have been prevented if guns were illegal.

Absolute and utter nonsense.

Had local guns laws in the area not have been as strict, then it would have been likely that a fair amount of people in the cinema would be carrying concealed guns - which means that as soon as the guy started shooting, people would have had a chance to defend themselves as well as protecting others. Another example of this is during the 9/11 hijackings when the federal government had banned firearms being carried on board planes - of course this meant that when the hijackers took out their guns, nobody was able to fight back as they'd all been disarmed by gun regulations (which of course, criminals will not and do not follow anyway).

And besides, the right to firearms is in the US Constitution - it isn't even up for debate whether they should be banned.

[dbgtz]

Absolute and utter nonsense.

Had local guns laws in the area not have been as strict, then it would have been likely that a fair amount of people in the cinema would be carrying concealed guns - which means that as soon as the guy started shooting, people would have had a chance to defend themselves as well as protecting others. Another example of this is during the 9/11 hijackings when the federal government had banned firearms being carried on board planes - of course this meant that when the hijackers took out their guns, nobody was able to fight back as they'd all been disarmed by gun regulations (which of course, criminals will not and do not follow anyway).

And besides, the right to firearms is in the US Constitution - it isn't even up for debate whether they should be banned.

Lots of smoke + fear in people could have easily made it more disastrous than it actually was. And besides, if there were no guns in the first place the whole thing wouldn't have occured, you'd just be fighting fire with fire.

At the last point, they could just amend the constitution so to say it isn't even up for debate is slightly incorrect.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Lots of smoke + fear in people could have easily made it more disastrous than it actually was.

But it also could have been much better than it was under my scenario, indeed the more people who were carrying concealed guns means the tragedy could have ended much sooner than it did.


And besides, if there were no guns in the first place the whole thing wouldn't have occured, you'd just be fighting fire with fire.

Ah yes, introducing a piece of paper will mean there are 'no guns' .. that really works doesn't it. I really don't understand the logic, the area clearly had tight gun controls and obviously the guy simply ignored them as all criminals do - but because of this it has resulted in unintended consquences which have left law abiding people unarmed.


At the last point, they could just amend the constitution so to say it isn't even up for debate is slightly incorrect.

The US Constitution isn't there to be fiddled around with by US politicians, it is there to be followed.

.. as for the post earlier which listed firearm deaths in the US, I could also produce similar (and indeed higher numbers) for the US and the UK concerning knife crime, club/pub deaths from glass bottles and even motorway accidents - yet would be consider banning or regulating any of these? and secondly, would it make any difference to those who are determined to carry out harm to others? the answer is no,

[dbgtz]

But it also could have been much better than it was under my scenario, indeed the more people who were carrying concealed guns means the tragedy could have ended much sooner than it did.


To be quite honest I won't bother debating this point any further, it is really hard to tell what would have happened because it ultimately relies on the person. Someone may be shaking a lot, missing shots which then hit others, but then you could have someone who is in the military and takes him out with ease.



Ah yes, introducing a piece of paper will mean there are 'no guns' .. that really works doesn't it. I really don't understand the logic, the area clearly had tight gun controls and obviously the guy simply ignored them as all criminals do - but because of this it has resulted in unintended consquences which have left law abiding people unarmed.


Well if you remove the source of guns, take as many as possible without infringing on human rights then they will slowly be eradicated. I mentioned earlier about this saying that I don't expect it to be an instant but at least the risk is then reduced.



The US Constitution isn't there to be fiddled around with by US politicians, it is there to be followed.

Regardless of what you think it is there for, it can still be amended.

[-:Undertaker:-]

To be quite honest I won't bother debating this point any further, it is really hard to tell what would have happened because it ultimately relies on the person. Someone may be shaking a lot, missing shots which then hit others, but then you could have someone who is in the military and takes him out with ease.

Of course it depends on circumstances, that is what i'm arguing - something which immediately nulls the argument that tighter gun laws would have prevented something like this happening, when in fact its likely these laws made the outcome even worse.


Well if you remove the source of guns, take as many as possible without infringing on human rights then they will slowly be eradicated. I mentioned earlier about this saying that I don't expect it to be an instant but at least the risk is then reduced.

So you think that if guns were banned tomorrow then in future there would be no more gun crime? absolute nonsense, criminals will always be able to smuggle in weapons whether we like it or not.

Gun laws only remove weapons from the law abiding and give the criminals a free reign.

http://www.websophist.com/AntiGunNeighbour2O.jpg
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151041420694872&set=a.447435709871.225414.367822059871&type=3&theater


Regardless of what you think it is there for, it can still be amended.

Of course it can, it can also be ignored and trampled on - thus being the reason why the US has so many undeclared wars, unconstitutional government programs, a centralised federal government which the founders warned against, powerful political parties and so on.

The question isn't whether it can be abolished, amended or ignored - it ought to be followed as basic law.

[dbgtz]

Of course it depends on circumstances, that is what i'm arguing - something which immediately nulls the argument that tighter gun laws would have prevented something like this happening, when in fact its likely these laws made the outcome even worse.

Not really sure how you came to that conclusion when you just said agreed with me by saying it depends on the circumstance.



So you think that if guns were banned tomorrow then in future there would be no more gun crime? absolute nonsense, criminals will always be able to smuggle in weapons whether we like it or not.


No, hence my last sentence:


I mentioned earlier about this saying that I don't expect it to be an instant but at least the risk is then reduced.


But to the last point about smuggling, I agree, but surely that's a different matter to allowing them to each and every citizen.



Gun laws only remove weapons from the law abiding and give the criminals a free reign.

http://www.websophist.com/AntiGunNeighbour2O.jpg


There are alternatives to guns.



Of course it can, it can also be ignored and trampled on - thus being the reason why the US has so many undeclared wars, unconstitutional government programs, a centralised federal government which the founders warned against, powerful political parties and so on.

The question isn't whether it can be abolished, amended or ignored - it ought to be followed as basic law.

Sorry but you seem to miss the point I was making. If it was amended, it would therefore become the law. You're basically saying that everything in the American constitution is perfect and should never be amended because it is a law which should be followed, which to be honest is stupid. It was drafted in the 18th(?) Century which would mean that parts of it will become outdated. Surely you should realise outdated principles should not be followed anymore.

[Stephen]

anyone who says that they should have been allowed to carry guns in the cinema to defend themselves are ******* idiots

[-:Undertaker:-]

Not really sure how you came to that conclusion when you just said agreed with me by saying it depends on the circumstance.

Because in your scenario (the one that occurred) you had one man with a gun vs an unarmed crowd. In my scenario, we'd have members of the audience armed meaning that the gunman would likely be outnumbered - thus meaning that the chances that he could kill up to 14 people would be rapidly depleted.


No, hence my last sentence:

What is this risk reduction nonsense we're subjected to? we could reduce the risk of many things such as banning fatty and salted foods (which kill more people than guns do), we could ban or restrict car speeds to 10mph (which kill more people than guns do) along with numerous other examples.

The fact of the matter is however, that when my house is broken into by a gun wielding criminal (who doesn't give a damn about the laws you've written, hence why he is on my property) then I am left unarmed and unprotected. And in a life and death situation for me and my family, that is unacceptable.


But to the last point about smuggling, I agree, but surely that's a different matter to allowing them to each and every citizen.

Indeed it is, because at the moment most criminals will be armed as will a great proportion of the population. Under your suggestions, the criminals would still have the guns (because they can buy them via smuggling) but the population would be unarmed.

How on earth does this make logical sense, it doesn't. It simply means that less deaths will result from thefts and beatings, because innocent people will be unable to protect themselves. Unacceptable again, as people have a right to protect themselves, their property and their family.


There are alternatives to guns.

Indeed there are, but when you're faced with a gun a knife or a baseball bat are pretty much useless. Now knowing criminals like we do, do you think criminals will also switch to baseball bats and knives in the interests of fair play? of course they won't.


Sorry but you seem to miss the point I was making. If it was amended, it would therefore become the law. You're basically saying that everything in the American constitution is perfect and should never be amended because it is a law which should be followed, which to be honest is stupid. It was drafted in the 18th(?) Century which would mean that parts of it will become outdated. Surely you should realise outdated principles should not be followed anymore.

It is perfect yes, just as our constitution is perfect - I don't trust the Republicans, Democrats, Labour, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Greens or even UKIP to change or amend a pair of historic constitutions which have worked fine for many centuries and continue to do so, despite arguments of flawed logic put against them (see your own argument above). I regard attempts to tamper with our basic laws as sinister to say the least and misguided at best.

Regarding the outdated issue - the US constitution actually didn't include gun rights because of the need to hunt or fish if you know your history, because back then if you didn't have a gun then you didn't eat. No, the gun rights were actually put in the US constitution to protect the citizens against the government.

In very much the same way Switzerland has historic gun rights, to arm the population against invading foreign governments.

[FlyingJesus]

.. as for the post earlier which listed firearm deaths in the US, I could also produce similar (and indeed higher numbers) for the US and the UK concerning knife crime, club/pub deaths from glass bottles and even motorway accidents - yet would be consider banning or regulating any of these?

Carrying knives in public is illegal, and lots of things could potentially be used as weapons despite their primary function (glass bottles, cars) but guns only serve one function unless you're going to pretend to want one in case you forget your key and have to shoot the lock

[GirlNextDoor15]

Take a look at the table in this link and you'll know you whole ******* debate is flawed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence
It should neither be legalized nor banned. Hong kong has the lowest homicide rate with firearms and guns are banned there while on the other hand, Colombia has the highest rate and guns are legalized. However, Zimbabwe is ranked fourth with 66% homicides with firearms and guns are banned there. So, it varies according to different countries and what differentiates them in my opinion is their culture and education. The gun culture, how they are brought up and how educated they are about weapons.
Education is always the most important element in one's society. Without the right education, one will fail to know what's right and what's wrong.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Carrying knives in public is illegal, and lots of things could potentially be used as weapons despite their primary function (glass bottles, cars) but guns only serve one function unless you're going to pretend to want one in case you forget your key and have to shoot the lock

Of course it is, and gun laws would/do make carrying guns illegal - yet gun and knife crime still occur, by the wicked having an advantage over the good. The function of a gun isn't at question, advocates of gun controls say that guns ought to be banned to prevent killings - yet exclude other things which cause more death and destruction such as glass bottles in clubs, knives and so on.

The argument is similar to the nuclear weapons debate in that guns and nuclear weapons exist and will always exist, the question is - is it better for just your enemy to be armed or is it better for both of you to be armed? And the answer of course is that at least when both are armed, you stand a chance.

The Swiss have perfectly fine good gun laws (very lax) that the US and UK should emulate; http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=179320202201276&set=a.176232325843397.40230.175926105874019&type=1&theater


Take a look at the table in this link and you'll know you whole ******* debate is flawed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence
It should neither be legalized nor banned. Hong kong has the lowest homicide rate with firearms and guns are banned there while on the other hand, Colombia has the highest rate and guns are legalized. However, Zimbabwe is ranked fourth with 66% homicides with firearms and guns are banned there. So, it varies according to different countries and what differentiates them in my opinion is their culture and education. The gun culture, how they are brought up and how educated they are about weapons.
Education is always the most important element in one's society. Without the right education, one will fail to know what's right and what's wrong.

Excellent point, much of it depends on how successful a justice system is as well as the moral values of a country. For that reason and the reason of liberty and self defence, i'd have them legalised - but of course that doesn't mean people have to have a gun, if they disagree they simply don't have to buy one.

The same goes for drug laws - I think drugs are incredibly dangerous and immoral, yet whether people choose to take them is not my business.

[SackRace]

So sad that a baby died too, R.I.P to all of them.

[GommeInc]

The Swiss have perfectly fine good gun laws (very lax) that the US and UK should emulate; http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=179320202201276&set=a.176232325843397.40230.175926105874019&type=1&theater
The many, many years of imbreeding both the US and UK have gone through means we will never be able to emulate Swiss gun laws. We're just too thick, and the US seem to think violence is the answer if their constitution (the right to bare arms) is anything to go by. There is simply no good in owning a gun, and the obvious flaw in the constitution for when the Government becomes out of hand is that the Government could pound the crap out of its citizens given how advanced the military is and the weaponry they have which far beats the shoddy hand-gun, shotgun or machine gun any US citizen can get their hands on. It's a part of their constitution which has never made sense since day one.

There is simply no need to own a gun (other than to shoot locks out, like FlyingJesus suggests, or to get your own food like the odd mouse, sparrow or pigeon).

[-:Undertaker:-]

The many, many years of imbreeding both the US and UK have gone through means we will never be able to emulate Swiss gun laws. We're just too thick, and the US seem to think violence is the answer if their constitution (the right to bare arms) is anything to go by. There is simply no good in owning a gun, and the obvious flaw in the constitution for when the Government becomes out of hand is that the Government could pound the crap out of its citizens given how advanced the military is and the weaponry they have which far beats the shoddy hand-gun, shotgun or machine gun any US citizen can get their hands on. It's a part of their constitution which has never made sense since day one.

It did make sense, a government can have all of the bombs and tanks it wants - but can it beat a population who all own guns? no, they're simply outnumbered. The American and Swiss examples of gun rights have prevented both tyrants and foreign governments essentially declaring dictatorships overrnight. As the Libertarian groups on Facebook point out - is it any wonder that Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao all banned guns? a population that is armed equals a population who are assured their rights as sometimes you need bullets to back up bits of paper.

Our constitution, the US Constitution and the Swiss constitutional system (all when followed) are the best in the world, hands down and they do not need to be tampered with by governments which are determined to remove our freedoms; from gun rights to free speech, to devolution/states rights and the Monarchy/limits of Presidential power.


There is simply no need to own a gun (other than to shoot locks out, like FlyingJesus suggests, or to get your own food like the odd mouse, sparrow or pigeon).

Er yes there is, self defence - the entire purpose of owning a gun is self defence. Therefore the idea that guns 'have no purpose' is complete nonsense. If you don't want to be protected against gun wielding criminals then thats entirely your choice, but if I do wish to protect myself and my family with a gun then i'm entirely right to do so. Indeed, you could even say its basic common sense.

I saw the comparison today of maybe we should ban spoons as spoons also kill people (more infact) due to unhealthy eating. Spoons and guns do not kill people, only a person can do that.

[GommeInc]

Er yes there is, self defence - the entire purpose of owning a gun is self defence. Therefore the idea that guns 'have no purpose' is complete nonsense. If you don't want to be protected against gun wielding criminals then thats entirely your choice, but if I do wish to protect myself and my family with a gun then i'm entirely right to do so. Indeed, you could even say its basic common sense.

I saw the comparison today of maybe we should ban spoons as spoons also kill people (more infact) due to unhealthy eating. Spoons and guns do not kill people, only a person can do that.
I seem to find they're being used on the offensive than the defensive these days. The argument for self-defense is just not that simple, and far too many people lose their guns or have their guns used against them.

Besides, it's never a "Government v The Population", what about those who support the Government? If the US Government were to magically warrant the use of the Second Amendment, the Government will win. The military will support the Government who obviously pays them - and then you have weapons available to the military which will out do the stuff Americans can buy over the counter. Then you get those people who support the Government who will just shoot at those who disagree with them (and vice versa) for the sake of having differences. It's not a good argument to allow guns because you have differences with the US Government or each other, as the common use seems to be (as well as simply having stuff someone else wants and will take by force).

Basic common sense would be not supplying the population with weapons to kill each other, there is no way to moderate a gun system and those who will wrongly use them or want them will be worse than those who rarely use them in the chance of being attacked and needing a form of defense.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I seem to find they're being used on the offensive than the defensive these days.

So essentially a few nutters are abusing them? that is the point in having guns in the first place.

A great deal of people abuse fast food, driving, smoking, drugs, knives and many many other examples - yet should we have government regulate these areas, remove our rights because of a few?


The argument for self-defense is just not that simple, and far too many people lose their guns or have their guns used against them.

In which case that is the calculated risk you take when you buy a gun, just as when you buy a car, have gay sex, unprotected sex or purchase a packet of cigarettes - let people choose themselves.


Besides, it's never a "Government v The Population", what about those who support the Government? If the US Government were to magically warrant the use of the Second Amendment, the Government will win. The military will support the Government who obviously pays them - and then you have weapons available to the military which will out do the stuff Americans can buy over the counter. Then you get those people who support the Government who will just shoot at those who disagree with them (and vice versa) for the sake of having differences. It's not a good argument to allow guns because you have differences with the US Government or each other, as the common use seems to be (as well as simply having stuff someone else wants and will take by force).

Oh indeed the government could win in this hypothetical takeover of government - but it is not assured. Without gun rights (and only government having a monopoly over arms) then you will be assured that 'the people' will lose against the regime because they haven't even got any guns to start off with in the first place, hence why places such as Syria/Libya and others have had to smuggle in guns - because tyrannical governments will not want an armed population. Again, using historical examples, it is the reason why Switzerland has continued to exist as a sovereign nation despite being a small country settled inbetween major historicla European powers.


Basic common sense would be not supplying the population with weapons to kill each other, there is no way to moderate a gun system and those who will wrongly use them or want them will be worse than those who rarely use them in the chance of being attacked and needing a form of defense.

Why does it need 'moderating'? at the end of the day, bad people will use guns anyway because they can (regardless of your moderation system) and good people will either be armed against the bad people or not armed.

The choice boils down to, do you want good people armed against those who are bad - because guns will still exist whatever you wish, its as much good as trying to wish away the atomic bomb.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Ice-T is spot on, just had this short clip come to my attention.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GwIbyp4xBU&feature=g-all-f


Government uses tragedy as a platform from which to argue for more governmental control and interference.

[Stephen]

Undertaker you're such an idiot

[GirlNextDoor15]

Why is that? I second Undertaker because it's true. Statistics have indirectly reported that no matter guns are banned or legalized, the usage of guns is still there. Whether it's high or low, that's another issue due to weak law enforcement etc. etc. You obviously can't blame James Holmes for killing 14. This is not the first case. In fact, back in 2007, a massacre took place in Virginia Tech killing 33 people including students and a teacher. We have lots and lots of cases like this but nothing has been done to change the reality that misuse of weapons is dangerous. So, that's where education comes in handy. Not simply banning guns or legalizing guns. What about knives, grenades and so on? Are we gonna ban forks too because forks are apparently lethal etc? The problem's not guns but WEAPONS.

for further info, this article is brilliant. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/07/under-a-blood-red-sky/260147/

[FiftyCal]

placing laws will only effect law abiding citizens while it will not effect the criminals

[Jarkie]

http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t83/jarkie/599364_262340257209205_1187968858_n.jpg

[GommeInc]

So essentially a few nutters are abusing them? that is the point in having guns in the first place.

A great deal of people abuse fast food, driving, smoking, drugs, knives and many many other examples - yet should we have government regulate these areas, remove our rights because of a few?
So the point of having guns is to arm nutters? This argument doesn't seem to be working for you.

Fast food, driving, smoking, drugs and knives aren't designed primarily to kill. Guns on the other hand are designed to serve purpose of killing or wounding.


In which case that is the calculated risk you take when you buy a gun, just as when you buy a car, have gay sex, unprotected sex or purchase a packet of cigarettes - let people choose themselves.
Well clearly in America they prefer to be trigger happy and feed some primal urge to shoot first and think later, or to arm clearly disturbed individuals who should never be allowed near guns. This case incl. innocent individuals like 6 year olds who shouldn't of fallen to such a pointless need to arm yourself for literally no reason, unless you're suggesting this 6 year old had a small pocket gun and was prepared to kill too?


Oh indeed the government could win in this hypothetical takeover of government - but it is not assured. Without gun rights (and only government having a monopoly over arms) then you will be assured that 'the people' will lose against the regime because they haven't even got any guns to start off with in the first place, hence why places such as Syria/Libya and others have had to smuggle in guns - because tyrannical governments will not want an armed population. Again, using historical examples, it is the reason why Switzerland has continued to exist as a sovereign nation despite being a small country settled inbetween major historicla European powers.
It is pretty much assured. Military grade weaponry versus the weaponry you can buy over the counter in the US is rather evident of this, given the fact that it will never happen that the Government would go against its people. It's an unprecedent and irrational fear that seems to be driving people to kill each other rather than serve an actual purpose.


Why does it need 'moderating'? at the end of the day, bad people will use guns anyway because they can (regardless of your moderation system) and good people will either be armed against the bad people or not armed.
Makes it difficult for the "bad people" to get hold of such weaponry and reduces the number of weaponry in circulation. That said, it's too late now to bring in a system to moderate gun sales - an outdated and purely unnecessary section of the constitution based on a fear of Government has pretty much destroyed any hope of moving Americans away from the need of gun ownership, especially when they're not being used for their purpose as stated in the constitution.


Why is that? I second Undertaker because it's true. Statistics have indirectly reported that no matter guns are banned or legalized, the usage of guns is still there. Whether it's high or low, that's another issue due to weak law enforcement etc. etc. You obviously can't blame James Holmes for killing 14. This is not the first case. In fact, back in 2007, a massacre took place in Virginia Tech killing 33 people including students and a teacher. We have lots and lots of cases like this but nothing has been done to change the reality that misuse of weapons is dangerous. So, that's where education comes in handy. Not simply banning guns or legalizing guns. What about knives, grenades and so on? Are we gonna ban forks too because forks are apparently lethal etc? The problem's not guns but WEAPONS.

for further info, this article is brilliant. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/07/under-a-blood-red-sky/260147/
The idea that "education solves everything" is baseless and clearly doesn't solve anything. Not all criminals are brainless, some have logically analysed each part of their crime. You do know this individual is/was a neuro-science student, who set up traps in his apartment? Quite amazing for someone who must be incredibly thick. We're all taught basic morality, yet we wander from the path because we either like to bend the rules, have no use for them in certain situations or just want to be human. An education will simply not solve the problem, especially when some people are either unwilling to learn (either because of some mental illness or lack of interest) or are pushed to commit a crime because it's the only way for them or it logically makes sense.

[GirlNextDoor15]

First of all, I would like to correct you on this.

''Fast food, driving, smoking, drugs and knives aren't designed primarily to kill. Guns on the other hand are designed to serve purpose of killing or wounding.''

Yes. Fast food and so on aren't designed primarily to kill. So are guns. But behold! Here comes the million dollar question. Why were guns invented? To answer that, it all goes back to cannons which came from rockets and rockets which came from Chinese fire-arrows and fire-arrows which came from gunpowder discovered by Chinese alchemists in 9th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder
According to Wikipedia,

Gunpowder, also known since the late 19th century as black powder, was the first chemical explosive and the only one known until the mid 1800s.

Gunpowder was, according to prevailing academic consensus, discovered in the 9th century in China, attributed to Chinese alchemists searching for an elixir of immortality.

Gunpowder was invented, documented, and used in China where the Chinese military forces used gunpowder-based weapons technology (i.e. rockets, guns, cannon), and explosives (i.e. grenades and different types of bombs) against the Mongols when the Mongols attempted to invade and breach the Chinese city fortifications on the northern borders of China.
Fyi, Chinese hated Mongolians because according to history, Mongolians were known as barbarians. It was always like that and that was their culture. And I don't think it was racist or whatever but rather a clash of cultures. Even if they didn't invent gunpowder, they would still use arrows or any other weapons (i.e knives etc) to protect themselves from Mongolians. Therefore, gunpowder wasn't created to kill or wound others for the sake of doing that but rather protecting themselves which is always essential in society.

And if you're trying to say that we're talking about guns and not gunpowder.. here's what I'm gonna tell you. Guns won't be guns if there's no bullet and bullets won't be bullets if there's no powder. Hence, gunpowder..


The idea that "education solves everything" is baseless and clearly doesn't solve anything. Not all criminals are brainless, some have logically analysed each part of their crime. You do know this individual is/was a neuro-science student, who set up traps in his apartment? Quite amazing for someone who must be incredibly thick. We're all taught basic morality, yet we wander from the path because we either like to bend the rules, have no use for them in certain situations or just want to be human. An education will simply not solve the problem, especially when some people are either unwilling to learn (either because of some mental illness or lack of interest) or are pushed to commit a crime because it's the only way for them or it logically makes sense.

Knew this would come. Different environments and different cultures will cause different behaviors in different people. Let's take Zimbabwe as an example. Guns are banned but does it help to reduce gun violence anywhere in Zimbabwe? If the people in Zimbabwe wants to carry a gun, it'll not be a problem even though guns are banned because weak law enforcement and government as well as low literacy rate. They don't even know how to read and write; let alone what's right and what's wrong. All they've been doing is learning from the adults and if we can educate the kids about how guns will affect someone, then maybe something's gonna change because obviously, banning or legalizing guns haven't changed anything so far.

Other than that, banning guns in US will for sure give lots of stuff for the ppl to talk about and legalizing it would be really dangerous. I won't feel comfortable when everyone's holding a gun while I'm eating at a cafe or smth. And yeah. Education's the most important one along with reinforcing laws. Government must show a good example for their people too because all we've seen so far is USA invades ... ... ....

[Foregetfuhl]

I think its so sad that someone would actually do that.. They even shot a three month old baby point blank.. i mean really.. its horrible! And he said he was the joker..? i mean... really...? People like this make me feel sick

[Stephen]

anyway everyone knows that guns dont kill people, rappers do

Edited by Lee (Forum Moderator): Please don't post pointlessly.

[GirlNextDoor15]

I think its so sad that someone would actually do that.. They even shot a three month old baby point blank.. i mean really.. its horrible! And he said he was the joker..? i mean... really...? People like this make me feel sick

No. People like you are the reason why James Holmes or Seung-Hui Cho would be so angry to kill people. Knowing someone's different doesn't mean you can tease him or make fun of him. That might be why James Holmes' a loner cause maybe everyone discriminates him. It's not their fault to have mental illnesses. They didn't choose to be like that. And about that three month old baby. Don't even mention about it. How can a baby that young end up in a cinema watching a violent movie like Batman? Isn't that movie supposed to be PG13 or something? Or maybe they don't implement all these kinda ratings at USA? That is where the system's full of flaws. No matter that baby's gonna end up dead or what, bringing a baby to a cinema is already the biggest mistake which won't take a genius to notice.

[Absently]

No. People like you are the reason why James Holmes or Seung-Hui Cho would be so angry to kill people. Knowing someone's different doesn't mean you can tease him or make fun of him. That might be why James Holmes' a loner cause maybe everyone discriminates him. It's not their fault to have mental illnesses. They didn't choose to be like that. And about that three month old baby. Don't even mention about it. How can a baby that young end up in a cinema watching a violent movie like Batman? Isn't that movie supposed to be PG13 or something? Or maybe they don't have implement all these kinda ratings at USA? That is where the system's full of flaws. No matter that baby's gonna end up dead or what, bringing a baby to a cinema is already the biggest mistake which won't take a genius to notice.So that suddenly makes it okay to kill someone... Most people get made fun of during their everyday life, but you don't see them killing people, do you? Those people have something wrong with them and it can not be justified. Have some respect.

[GirlNextDoor15]

So that suddenly makes it okay to kill someone... Most people get made fun of during their everyday life, but you don't see them killing people, do you? Those people have something wrong with them and it can not be justified. Have some respect.

Like I said, it's not their fault. Something must be wrong with the culture or environment. No sane humans will pick up a gun and start killing people.

[GommeInc]

*snip*
All you've managed to answer is that guns are there to kill thanks to the accidental invention of gunpowder...

As for the rest, you've gone back on your belief that education is the answer to everything and turned it into a cultural argument. Which is it? You're the one that believes that gun crime in America can be solved by education with the idea that criminals are thick, possibly using the miscontrude phrase "thick as thieves" for inspiration, when in actual fact they're not thick at all, many if not the majority of criminals are intelligent. You can't solve gun crime with education as it's not the lack of knowledge which is the problem, it's a problem with the irrational need for guns in a society that hasn't required guns for hundreds of years.

You also use the poor example of Zimbabwe and this over-exaggerated belief that education can again teach gun users to not use their weapons (the problem is use rather than actually owning them) yet Zimbabwe and America both have different levels of intelligence, yet both have quite serious problems with gun crime. If anything, you've proven that education doesn't work when it comes to gun use using two extremes, a country with rather good education and one which is in poverty and has no resources available to teach the population.

The counter-argument to this is that banning them simply will not work either, which is true to the extent that it's too late to make gun ownership illegal or restricted. The industry is established and will never go away even when the shops are closed and the factories shut down. It's a situation where America has completely ruined morality with the constitutional belief that guns are the little saviours of the nation when they were never going to be and it was inevitable that they would not be used properly (though why they thought it was a good idea to promote violence if Government goes wrong is beyond me).

[mrwoooooooo]

erm you dont need a gun to defend yourself if no-one has a gun to attack you with?

so should we allow people to walk around towns with knives now too?

[Lee]

Terrible news, I can't believe how sick some people actually are... RIP to the lost souls.