Mass Shooting at Colo. Movie Theater, 14 People Dead

[scipio337]

I will admit touché. Although, I can’t see how you could get 3.14159 bullets in a magazine.

So far as I see it, there are only 2 uses for a magazine that big: shooting a close-knit crowd of people with a (semi) automatic weapon and large suppression fire, neither of which are applicable to citizens (and neither of which would qualify for 2nd Amendment protection as I understand it). The only people who would make use of such things in the continental US are terrorists and criminals, no homeowner needs 200-rounds to protect their home (and if they do, they probably went far beyond self-defense), and I’ve yet to hear a plausible use for a private citizen besides “I want, HOW DARE YOU RESTRICT MY LIBERTY” (I only wish that was a straw-man).

On what basis do you think there are only two uses for a large magazine?

The “reason” is moot. It could be as simple as “I don’t like loading magazines at the range”. There is no “reasoning test” for the 2nd Amendment.

I doubt we’ll ever see eye to eye on this. The 2nd Amendment wasn’t about “hunting” or “protecting from criminals”. It was to protect the citizenry from a tyrannical government. Something Canadians didn’t appear to be too dissatisfied with, as they stayed with George II. Not that it’s a bad thing, but the “American Experiment” is ingrained on our collective psyche. If you were to compare the American and French Revolutions, you’d see the difference between the ideas of Locke and Rousseau, and why one prospered as a republic, and the other devolved into savagery, Napoleonic dictatorship, another monarchary, and finally, some semblance of a republic.

curlycool89:

Fine, I guess you guys just won’t accept anything but the status quo. Tell anyone else in entire world that you believe that 200-round magazines should be allowed and they’ll lock you up. I can’t say I fully understand Americans.

This is why I will never live in the US.

It still makes me wonder how the US has survived this long as a country founded on absolute individualism.

I don’t know, just the colour pattern makes me think about wanting it banned

Personally, i don’t know of any manufacturer of “200 round magazines”, which is beside the point, but I’m not “telling anyone else in the world” how to run their country. I would consider it just as ludicrous for me to tell a Canadian how their government should operate as I would the inverse.

That “absolute individualism” is the reason why the US is independent, while Canada remains a “Commonwealth Realm” to this day. Again, not that it’s bad, but different strokes for different folks.

Oh, and I’m a huge Rush fan!

 

[scipio337]

Correction: “George II” should be “George III”.

Still need my 2nd cup of coffee!

 

[Gift_from_God]

Except when it doesn’t work.

thestar.com/news/gta/crime/article/1209713–eaton-centre-shooting-second-victim-dies

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_massacre

I’m aware of the shootings. I never said firearm homicide is at zero in Canada. You cannot take a couple cases and simply say gun control does not work. Look at the statistics of firearm homicide in America for the past ten years than look at the same for Canada. Clearly, we’re doing much better

 

[curlycool89]

You forget that the Second Amendment is not about fighting criminals, any more than it is about hunting. It is about starting American Revolution 2.0, should that ever be necessary. And in that context, “suppression fire” would indeed be covered.

Right, I forgot American’s other obsession: paranoia. And you guys wonder why your news media is the way it is; it just reflects your culture.

Except when it doesn’t work.

thestar.com/news/gta/crime/article/1209713–eaton-centre-shooting-second-victim-dies

In a way it is though. The only people who have access to such things are by an large gangs and other organized crime. Generally speaking they’re pragmatic, they usually spend their energy killing each other (so far as I’m concerned, that’s the risk they choose to take by choosing that sort of life). By and large we don’t have to worry about a random lone gunman (for the most part, there are exceptions) because it’s very difficult to get access to guns.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_massacre

14, still not forgotten.

That guy was a misogynist who had a beef with women in engineering though.

I doubt we’ll ever see eye to eye on this. The 2nd Amendment wasn’t about “hunting” or “protecting from criminals”. It was to protect the citizenry from a tyrannical government.

So again, continued paranoia.

Something Canadians didn’t appear to be too dissatisfied with, as they stayed with George II.

Don’t forget the United Empire Loyalists, who emmigrated to what’s now Ontario to get away from the new America. It wasn’t as coherent or homogenous a revolution as you like to think.

Not that it’s a bad thing, but the “American Experiment” is ingrained on our collective psyche.

So again, you guys are just suffering a bit of a bout of 300 year paranoia.

I don’t know if I should have to be the one to tell you this, but why not: The Revolution is over. You guys won. Being in a paranoid “on guard” state forever is not healthy. It shows very little trust in the future and in God’s providence.

That “absolute individualism” is the reason why the US is independent, while Canada remains a “Commonwealth Realm” to this day. Again, not that it’s bad, but different strokes for different folks.

I don’t know about that last part, because you say “Commonwealth Realm” with such vitriol (considering that you’re contrasting it with independence).

I’m aware of the shootings. I never said firearm homicide is at zero in Canada. You cannot take a couple cases and simply say gun control does not work. Look at the statistics of firearm homicide in America for the past ten years than look at the same for Canada. Clearly, we’re doing much better

Mostly people just get stabbed here instead.

But on the other hand, I feel much safer here with knife violence then with gun violence. They at least have to get close to me to stab me.

 

[SamH]

I’m aware of the shootings. I never said firearm homicide is at zero in Canada. You cannot take a couple cases and simply say gun control does not work. Look at the statistics of firearm homicide in America for the past ten years than look at the same for Canada. Clearly, we’re doing much better

But Mexico has the most strict firearm laws in Americas. How’s that working for them?

 

[SamH]

Mostly people just get stabbed here instead.

.

Or die of boredom.

 

[curlycool89]

Or die of boredom.

That’s an unfair pot-shot. Just because we don’t obsess over every little thing doesn’t mean we’re bored. We’re just a little more willing to adopt a “wait and see” approach to some things. Our political system has many built-in flexibilities and ambiguities that we’re just fine with.

Next you’ll be saying that Canada is “not as free” as the US. But that would be ironic, because people make the same accusation against Catholicism as being “shackling” or “freedom-denying”.

 

[estesbob]

Or die of boredom.

 

[scipio337]

Right, I forgot American’s other obsession: paranoia. And you guys wonder why your news media is the way it is; it just reflects your culture.

In a way it is though. The only people who have access to such things are by an large gangs and other organized crime. Generally speaking they’re pragmatic, they usually spend their energy killing each other (so far as I’m concerned, that’s the risk they choose to take by choosing that sort of life). By and large we don’t have to worry about a random lone gunman (for the most part, there are exceptions) because it’s very difficult to get access to guns.

14, still not forgotten.

That guy was a misogynist who had a beef with women in engineering though.

So again, continued paranoia.

Don’t forget the United Empire Loyalists, who emmigrated to what’s now Ontario to get away from the new America. It wasn’t as coherent or homogenous a revolution as you like to think.

So again, you guys are just suffering a bit of a bout of 300 year paranoia.

I don’t know if I should have to be the one to tell you this, but why not: The Revolution is over. You guys won. Being in a paranoid “on guard” state forever is not healthy. It shows very little trust in the future and in God’s providence.

I don’t know about that last part, because you say “Commonwealth Realm” with such vitriol (considering that you’re contrasting it with independence).

Summation: “Americans are paranoid”.

Bon fait, old sport!

I’m still not sure that its a valid argument for disarming a free and independent people.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I don’t know if I should have to be the one to tell you this, but why not: The Revolution is over. You guys won. Being in a paranoid “on guard” state forever is not healthy. It shows very little trust in the future and in God’s providence.

Scroll forward to 1812, when the U.S. attempt to seize Canada was soundly defeated. Win one, lose one, eh?

 

[liturgyluver]

But Mexico has the most strict firearm laws in Americas. How’s that working for them?

Mexico, which is a very poor country is hardly a good comparator. Gun-related death rates in the United States are eight times higher than they are in countries that are economically and politically similar to it

If you want to compare gun crime across the western world the figures speak for themsleves:in the United States in 2009 there were 3.0 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants; for comparison, the figure for the United Kingdom, with very restrictive firearm laws (handguns are totally prohibited, for example) was 0.07, about 40 times lower, and for Germany 0.2. The number of people killed by firearms per year:

1.United States - 11,127
2.Canada – 165
3.Germany – 381
4.France – 255
5.Australia – 65
6.United Kingdom – 68
7.Japan – 39

 

[Lost_Sheep]

OK.

I’ve read through this entire thread and there are many posts I would like to respond to, I don’t know where to begin. So I will offer my comments this way.

1. Guns do not kill people. Guns are inanimate objects. They have no life, no brain, no conscience and no sense of reason. They have the same intelligence as a rock. To suggest than guns kill people is like saying pencils cause spelling errors, automobiles cause drunk drivers and spoons made Rosie O’Donnell fat.
2. There is nothing that can be done to stop some people from killing other people. It is sad, but that is just human nature. Murder has been around since the days of Cain and Abel. People were killing each other long before guns were ever invented. Banning guns will not change anything.
3. For our European friends, and those elsewhere in the world, banning guns would be infinitely more difficult than it sounds. Guns are part of America’s culture; they help to define who we are. When the first Europeans arrived in the new world back in the 15th century, those early explorers had guns because they needed guns to survive. They needed guns to hunt for food and to defend themselves.

The American Colonists who fought in our revolutionary war against the British, fought for the most part with privately owned firearms. (And managed to defeat what was then the most powerful army in the world!).

It was then written into the U.S. Constitution that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. This was intended as a defense against a tyrannical government. Note that the United States does not have a tyrannical government. Why? Because the citizenry have guns.

As the westward expansion began in the 1800s, again guns were necessary for both survival and defense. Guns are so deeply ingrained into the American psyche that it would be impossible to eliminate them. It would certainly not be as simple as saying “OK. Everyone turn in your guns. You can’t have them anymore.”

1. There is a saying in America that goes “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” Colorado has a concealed carry law but Cinemark, the company that owns the theater, does not allow guns on their premises. So there was no way that theater patrons would have been able to defend themselves once the shooting started. The outlaw shooter obviously didn’t care about to no-gun policy.

There were several military people in the theater who no doubt were experienced using guns in high stress situations. They could have easily neutralized the shooter.

1. Instead of limiting guns in what would be a vain attempt to prevent killings, the citizens of the U.S. should be encouraged, if not required, to arm themselves. If James Holmes had reason to believe that some or all of the theater-goers might be armed, he may not have attempted his actions in the first place. Guns are not only weapons; they are also deterrents.

 

[StevenFrancis]

I know it’s wishy washy and I apologize, but I could only go with “I don’t know”. For what it’s worth, I was once anti-gun, then anti-handgun, then anti-concealed carry. I am now more understanding of the constitution, and more suspicious of the Government than I once was, and beginning to see much of gun control as a ruse to disarm the citizens leaving them fully vulnerable to the Government. It’s all a bit of a tricky business, and I guess at the end of the day, it so tricky that I haven’t completely formed what it is the Government should do about guns.

There is an inherent duty on the side of the Government to protect us from agressors, both foreign and domestic. The Government’s real business is the security and well being of it’s citizens. There is a constitutional right of a citizen to keep and bear arms to protect himself as well. It has a ring to me similar to “mutually assured destruction” like we had during the cold war with the nuclear arsenals.

So, I don’t have any answers. I guess the Government should make laws concerning safety, such as requiring trigger locks, gun usage classes prior to registration to ensure the user knows what their doing, and aren’t going to hurt themselves or someone else through gross negligence.

PERSONAL OPINION ALERT -
In my lone opinion, from what I have been able to figure out with the limited time I have spent on this topic, it would seem to me that perhaps citizens don’t need automatic weapons. I’m willing to be wrong, but it just seems like overkill for family protection and/or hunting. I’m not sure we should have concealed carry allowed, except by undercover law enforcement officers. It just seems to ME to be unfair. Kind of a violation of truth in advertising. I lived in a little town in Arizona called Prescott. We had a street there called Whiskey Row. The town would fill up with cowboys and guns every July for a rodeo festival, and the saloons were all full to capacity. People with guns wore them on the outside of their clothes, like in the old west, and actually checked the guns at the bar when out drinking. Never recall a shooting incident. It has never bothered me seeing someone wearing their holster and gun. You know right where they stand. It’s honest. Concealed carry creeps me out. I don’t like it. If people want to carry a gun, they should carry it right out front. Rifles preferably, slung over the shoulder, or sidearms well displayed on a gun belt. Just my opinion.

Apart from that, I don’t hold much on opinion, and no…the biannual murder sprees of lunatics don’t alter my opinions on the subject. Those things will continue to happen as long as man’s spirit is so dark, and in need of God.

 

[liturgyluver]

Summation: “Americans are paranoid”.

Bon fait, old sport!

I’m still not sure that its a valid argument for disarming a free and independent people.

How can you possibly claim to be free and independent people if 40% of you feel the need to posses a firearm to guarantee that freedom. And how about what your Bishops say about the need to restrict firearms, eventually to just the police and the military?

 

[Lost_Sheep]

Here is what can happen when citizens are allowed to defend themselves.

youtube.com/watch?v=S9RKMtLcacU

 

[Lost_Sheep]

How can you possibly claim to be free and independent people if 40% of you feel the need to posses a firearm to guarantee that freedom. And how about what your Bishops say about the need to restrict firearms, eventually to just the police and the military?

We are free and independent BECAUSE we are allowed to possess firearms.

Do you think criminals are going to care about gun restrictions?

 

[liturgyluver]

OK.

I’ve read through this entire thread and there are many posts I would like to respond to, I don’t know where to begin. So I will offer my comments this way.

1. Guns do not kill people. Guns are inanimate objects. They have no life, no brain, no conscience and no sense of reason. They have the same intelligence as a rock. To suggest than guns kill people is like saying pencils cause spelling errors, automobiles cause drunk drivers and spoons made Rosie O’Donnell fat.
2. There is nothing that can be done to stop some people from killing other people. It is sad, but that is just human nature. Murder has been around since the days of Cain and Abel. People were killing each other long before guns were ever invented. Banning guns will not change anything.
3. For our European friends, and those elsewhere in the world, banning guns would be infinitely more difficult than it sounds. Guns are part of America’s culture; they help to define who we are. When the first Europeans arrived in the new world back in the 15th century, those early explorers had guns because they needed guns to survive. They needed guns to hunt for food and to defend themselves.

The American Colonists who fought in our revolutionary war against the British, fought for the most part with privately owned firearms. (And managed to defeat what was then the most powerful army in the world!).

It was then written into the U.S. Constitution that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. This was intended as a defense against a tyrannical government. Note that the United States does not have a tyrannical government. Why? Because the citizenry have guns.

As the westward expansion began in the 1800s, again guns were necessary for both survival and defense. Guns are so deeply ingrained into the American psyche that it would be impossible to eliminate them. It would certainly not be as simple as saying “OK. Everyone turn in your guns. You can’t have them anymore.”

1. There is a saying in America that goes “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” Colorado has a concealed carry law but Cinemark, the company that owns the theater, does not allow guns on their premises. So there was no way that theater patrons would have been able to defend themselves once the shooting started. The outlaw shooter obviously didn’t care about to no-gun policy.

There were several military people in the theater who no doubt were experienced using guns in high stress situations. They could have easily neutralized the shooter.

1. Instead of limiting guns in what would be a vain attempt to prevent killings, the citizens of the U.S. should be encouraged, if not required, to arm themselves. If James Holmes had reason to believe that some or all of the theater-goers might be armed, he may not have attempted his actions in the first place. Guns are not only weapons; they are also deterrents.

Thanks for taking the time to explain the background to this situation and the historical context. But there are plently of democracies round the world without tyrannical governments and without its citizens needing to posses guns. It sounds like many people in the US are mistrustful of its democratic processes, its goverments and its fellow citizens.

 

[liturgyluver]

We are free and independent BECAUSE we are allowed to possess firearms.

Do you think criminals are going to care about gun restrictions?

Are you claiming that the guns act as a deterent to would-be criminals? Well, that’s simply not true, your homicide rate from gun crime is 8 times higher than the western average - completely off the scale. And though crime is now falling you have always had one of the highest crime rates in the western world.

 

[Charlotte408]

Here is what can happen when citizens are allowed to defend themselves.

youtube.com/watch?v=S9RKMtLcacU

Oh snap! If I had a grandpa I’d want him to be JUST like that

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

We are free and independent BECAUSE we are allowed to possess firearms.

If firearm possession (other than conventional long guns) equates to freedom and independence, how do you account for freedom and independence in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, the U.K., and in western Europe?