Colorado Batman incident

I'm not going to even get involved in the chat going. Just going to cry for the victims and their families.​
WFt79.jpg
 
I believe that this is a somewhat inappropriate time to discuss the Second Amendment. One thing that angers me is when politicians and pundits use a tragedy to advance a political agenda. In a few days, then I will be willing to discuss my opinions on the Second Amendment. But for now, my thoughts go out to the victims, and I hope for justice against the perpetrator through a fair trial.
 
My apologies. To be honest I was not really responding to this tragedy, but to the issue of capital punishment in general.
And I agree this may not be the appropriate spot for that discussion at this time.
If anyone wishes to discuss capital punishment further, I suggest we take it to another thread, where others can avoid it if they so desire.
 
I agree with 425 on this one. This is a horrible incident and my thoughts go out to the victims and their families. Maybe another day we can talk about gun control in the US.

Peace.
 
Don't worry mckindog, I can imagine that this discussion happened.
I haven't seen people having trouble with subdiscussions in other tragedy-topics, so I don't get why people react different to such here. Well, I think I know why, but I'll keep it for myself, at this time.
Did someone have contact with SMX lately? I sure hope he was not in that building (chances are small but this was my first thought when I heard the news).
 
I don't believe in censoring discussion because some are offended by it.
But we run a very civil forum here. Ultimately, it is up to the mods, but if people wish to discuss these shootings without being exposed to debate about things like gun control and capital punishment, I have no problem moving those discussions elsewhere. Particularly when some of those objections are being raised by frequent and valued posters.
And since I run the risk of now diverting this thread into etiquette and free speech issues, I am practicing what I preach and signing off.
 
425 said:
I believe that this is a somewhat inappropriate time to discuss the Second Amendment. One thing that angers me is when politicians and pundits use a tragedy to advance a political agenda. In a few days, then I will be willing to discuss my opinions on the Second Amendment. But for now, my thoughts go out to the victims, and I hope for justice against the perpetrator through a fair trial.
Click to expand...
This is something I read yesterday that I wholeheartedly agree with:

Max Read said:
"There is no such thing as 'politicizing' tragedy. James Holmes did not materialize in a movie theater in Aurora this morning, free of any relationship to law and authority and the structures of power in this country; nor did he exit those relationships and structures by murdering 12 people and injuring several dozen more. Before he entered the theater, he purchased guns, whether legally or illegally, under a framework of laws and regulations governed and negotiated by politics; in the parking lot outside, he was arrested by a police force whose salaries, equipment, tactics and rights were shaped and determined by politics. Holmes' ability to seek, or to not seek, mental health care; the government's ability, or inability, to lock up persons deemed unstable -- these are things decided and directed by politics. You cannot 'politicize' a tragedy because the tragedy isalready political. When you talk about the tragedy you're already talking about politics."
Click to expand...

From: http://gawker.com/5927847/there-is-no-such-thing-as-politicizing-a-tragedy
 
Interesting but this goes pretty far.
I wonder if there are any tragedies which are non-political then, according to this reasoning.
Are there any happenings on earth which are non-political?
 
I understand what you're saying, LooseCannon, and I agree to an extent that things are political, and when I begin to talk about guns again I will discuss this event in such arguments, but my point more refers to people taking advantage of the immediate shock and pain of a tragedy and using it to advance a political agenda. This is especially true right now considering that it is possible to likely that this fall, President Obama will sign and the US Senate will be asked to vote on the UN Arms Trade Treaty which includes civilian firearms. This vote will probably be close (58/100 senators signed a letter opposing it last year, and 60 votes are required to pass it, but minds often change in the messed up world of American politics), and there are concerns that politicians on either side could take advantage of feelings of shock at these events and use this event to alter the senate vote (either by arguing that this would not have happened with more regulation or by arguing that this would have not been as tragic if civilians in the theater were armed, neither of which I will discuss the merits of until tomorrow, allowing a day to pass).
 
I hope it passes. The UN Arms Trade Treaty will not regulate the internal sales of guns in your country, or any other, but instead, will merely regulate how the US sells guns to other countries. That doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment.
 
I don't think it is inappropriate to take this as a topic for discussion. We are all quite far from the happenings, and I have difficulties getting more emotionally involved in this than any other human tragedy. The thing is, we are talking about wars and famines all the time while people are dying from it, so I don't really see why we should be more tactful in this case. I don't mean to be cynical here - I think this is a grave disaster and an immesurable human tragedy. But how is it any different from people dying in Syria or Japan? Honestly, I don't get it.

To add in my opinion on this matter. We've had this discussion a while ago during the Virginia Tech massacre (or whatever it was called), and I think I recall saying there that I have changed my view on the effect of gun control on such events. On the surface, I have a very un-European view here, but that does not mean I subscribe to NRA propaganda. It is complicated, so bear with me.

I believe that strict gun control only helps preventing such killing sprees when the presence of or easy access to a gun is the inspiration. I don't know in how far this has been studied, but I do think that in some cases, such as someone being bullied to the edge in school, it is possible that a massacre would not have happened had a gun not been in reach. Nevertheless, when we are dealing with massacres such as this one, the Breivik case, the Columbine shooting or others, it is too easy to blame gun access. These people are psychopaths. They have elaborate plans at hand, and those include getting the weapons they require. In many cases, the guns people used were not easily available to them. Even if it was possible to legally obtain them, extreme effort was required to do so.

Next, I have severe difficulties in following the interpretation that such massacres are a predominantly American phenomenon. I may be mistaken on this, but the way I see it, this was a popular opinion around 2000, when there was indeed a string of such terrible events in America. But since, there have been several rampages in German schools, for example. Look up Erfurt, Winnenden, and Emsdetten. These cases just don't make headlines in America, so it does lead Americans to believe it is an inherent part of their culture, as Michael Moore put it in his demagogy. But that is not true. I rather believe this is a result of a general development in modern civilisation. I find it possible that excessive mass media consumption contributes to a certain grade of desentisation. This may be enough to push very fragile individuals off the edge. There is of course, more to it than that - social and emotional isolation, or even hostile bullying would contribute just as much. I don't have the impression that there is a disproportionate amount of "psycho-killers" in America. We have to consider that America is a very big country with a very large population, and of course also very large urban centres in which these effects of modern civilisation are more likely to occur.

I do oppose gun proliferation and gun possession for other reasons, but that would be off-topic.
 
Perun said:
Nevertheless, when we are dealing with massacres such as this one, the Breivik case, the Columbine shooting or others, it is too easy to blame gun access. These people are psychopaths. They have elaborate plans at hand, and those include getting the weapons they require. In many cases, the guns people used were not easily available to them. Even if it was possible to legally obtain them, extreme effort was required to do so.
Click to expand...

The following case is different but it shows how people woke up and started to act afterwards. In Holland, last year we had a spree shooting and in hindsight it seemed the guy should not have a permit (for a shooting club), because the guy had severe mental problems which were not unknown to some. He had a history of psychological and psychiatric problems, including paranoid schizophrenia; in 2006 he spent 10 days in a closed institution after attempting suicide. He tried to commit suicide at least twice in 2008. The permit was given too easily.

So the awareness increased after this spree shooting, and rightfully so. I'd say there's nothing wrong with reviewing all the steps that are taken to get a weapon.

Look what happened:

A total of 249 gun permits have been revoked as the results of additional screening and inspections prompted by the Alphen aan den Rijn mall shooting in which seven people were killed.
http://www.rnw.nl/english/bulletin/more-gun-permits-revoked-after-alphen-shootings

Shooting spree report criticises Dutch doctors and police
The gunman who killed six people and himself in a shooting spree was granted a weapons permit far too easily, even though his doctors knew he had suicidal tendencies.
http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/shooting-spree-report-criticises-dutch-doctors-and-police

So, certainly responsibility can be taken, and screening can be (re-)done or intensified.
I am not saying these shootings will ever stop, or can be prevented easily. But certainly as much as possible should be tried to do so. And if a country's law is not good enough to deal with this, then change the damned law if you love your fellow citizens.
 
If you take the guns away from responsible people, the irresponsible people and criminals will still have their guns. Criminals will pay no attention to stricter gun laws.
 
Perun said:
Next, I have severe difficulties in following the interpretation that such massacres are a predominantly American phenomenon. I may be mistaken on this, but the way I see it, this was a popular opinion around 2000, when there was indeed a string of such terrible events in America. But since, there have been several rampages in German schools, for example. Look up Erfurt, Winnenden, and Emsdetten. These cases just don't make headlines in America, so it does lead Americans to believe it is an inherent part of their culture, as Michael Moore put it in his demagogy. But that is not true. I rather believe this is a result of a general development in modern civilisation. I find it possible that excessive mass media consumption contributes to a certain grade of desentisation. This may be enough to push very fragile individuals off the edge. There is of course, more to it than that - social and emotional isolation, or even hostile bullying would contribute just as much. I don't have the impression that there is a disproportionate amount of "psycho-killers" in America. We have to consider that America is a very big country with a very large population, and of course also very large urban centres in which these effects of modern civilisation are more likely to occur.
Click to expand...

It's impossible to compare. The USA has the highest level of murders\per capita in the entire Western World. It is a fact that is decreasing in the last 20 years, but it's still a huge problem.

See this graphic: http://chartsbin.com/view/1454

And this one, is a good example of the differences between the countries ( UN's Intentional homicide, rate per 100,000 population - 2004): http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/IHS-rates-05012009.pdf

Low estimate:

Ethiopia - 6.1 (for example purposes)

USA - 5.6

Only the East European and the Baltic countries have higher estimates than 5.6. Other than that, below 5.6, the next level of all European countries is of Albania (3.8).
 
maidenn.c.indiana said:
If you take the guns away from responsible people, the irresponsible people and criminals will still have their guns. Criminals will pay no attention to stricter gun laws.
Click to expand...
This just isn't true, though. Most illegal guns start their lives as legal guns somewhere in the USA. They enter the mainstream through three methods: hijacking arms shipments, reselling legally purchased firearms, or crooked gun dealers. Gun prohibition is more likely to be successful because unlike gin, you can't cook up an AK-47 in your bathtub. It's made even worse when you consider that illegal guns in Canada and Mexico tend to come from (guess where) the USA.

Nobody wants to "take guns away", but reasonable restrictions seem...well...reasonable.
 
As reasonable as I said in my previous post. Doctors, police, everyone important enough should be involved in the giving and taking of weapons permits (and if possible: of weapons).

Looks like we're having a psychiatric patient again. He's charged. That's fine but who will take a look at the role of his psychiatrist and possible other people involved in giving him the weapon (permit)?
 
I seriously doubt that the majority of illegal guns start as legal guns in the USA. Sorry but we're not the only country that manufactues them. My point is that if you ban people from having guns, the only people you will be banning are the responsible people. Criminals will pay no heed to the ban. I am not a member of the NRA yet I own several guns. I've been trained in how to use them. I don't carry a gun with me, I'm not getting pissed at the bar and waving it around, I don't pull it out at parties to perform tricks. However if you try to break into my house and hurt me or my loved ones, you will die from a serious case of lead poisoning. No people don't need assault weapons and when the criminals and other bad elements give up their guns, I'll gladly give up mine. Until then....
 
Perhaps you don't like the idea but I'll tell you once again, this is not 0nly about criminals:
If you'd go to a shrink (and especially if you'd be a serious case) I hope you'll loose your weapons.
 
I think the gun/weapons trade all over the world needs to be regulated a bit better/stricter. And personally I don't understand that the US feels this big need for everyone to own a gun. Licensed hunters, police, and only those others who have gone through rigorous testing should be allowed to own guns. The easier it is to buy a gun for the general population, the easier it is for petty criminals to get their hands on them...lets be real, big time drug lords are not the people breaking into people's homes for change and would hold someone's family at gunpoint. Not everyone needs to have gun...not everyone should have a gun. Guns are seriously dangerous. I think the mindset is very much one left over from colonial times when a bear could break into your little wood cot but come on now, this is the 21st century after all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top