Mass Shooting at Colo. Movie Theater, 14 People Dead

[curlycool89]

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

Most of the rest of the world would disagree.

Personally, I fell no less free because I can’t own a gun. I don’t see a need.

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

Well, it certainly sent a blow to the whole “Manifest Destiny” craziness.

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

My calculations for Canada say around 0.5 per 100K from those numbers. Or 6 times less then the US.

Guns are part of America’s culture; they help to define who we are.

I can’t decide which one to go with: inferiority complex or compensating for something (as if the Hummers and truck-balls didn’t already give that one away).

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.

I’m so sorry that you guys have’t discovered grocery stores yet.

We use to be the world’s leader in beaver fur trade in Canada. Now, we’ve moved on.

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!).

And then subsequently lost the War of 1812 to French farmers, barely trained militia, and the Six Nations.

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.

Guess what? Neither Canada nor Britain have tyrannical governments either. And we even managed to do it without guns!

Your example is not persuasive, nor proof of anything. Actually, my contrastive example says that guns had absolutely nothing to do with it.

As the westward expansion began in the 1800s, again guns were necessary for both survival and defense.

I’m sorry that you have yet to tame the Wild West.

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.”

It’s compensating for something, isn’t it?

Heck, I can even throw out psychobabble for you: Being in possession of a firearm reinforces someone’s power and independence, it reinforces their masculinity. Take the guns away, and Americans feel impotent. They have reduced their masculinity to possession of an inanimate object.

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.

Someone with a gun would have been totally useless in this situation. They were in the same dark theatres and everyone else, they probably would have just ended up shooting more innocent people. There is no proof whatsoever that someone with a gun would have made any difference, and suggesting that it definitely would have is a fallacy.

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.

How well trained are they are close-urban situations where they are caught off-guard and unaware? Unlike Captain America, regular soldiers are not superheros. There’s no definitive proof to say that they would have made any difference.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I think Rich was in the Chair Force.

Right!

Regarding handguns, when I was in Nam in Saigon, I was issued the standard AF 4" revolver with iron sights, ostensibly to protect, not myself, but my classified documents. I carried that revolver in the same bag I used to carry my lunch sandwiches. So much for being awed by being able to carry a sidearm.

 

[liturgyluver]

There are things about different cultures we may never agree on, and maybe aren’t meant to understand.

Like Marmite, for example.

I am with you on Marmite!

 

[rlg94086]

`19 men killed 3000+ using box cutters.

That leaves a tough decision for liberals…what to ban, what to ban…

…should we ban box cutters or airplanes? I think they decided on banning metal butter knives.

 

[rlg94086]

Right!

Regarding handguns, when I was in Nam in Saigon, I was issued the standard AF 4" revolver with iron sights, ostensibly to protect, not myself, but my classified documents. I carried that revolver in the same bag I used to carry my lunch sandwiches. So much for being awed by being able to carry a sidearm.

Humor, Rich. A Navy friend of mine used the term, when we discussing a woman we just hired. I thought it was funny. Please don’t take offense. I’m sure you know plenty of similar jokes about the Army, Navy, Marines and Coast Guard. Inter-military joking happens all the time. I’m just a non-vet, former-Communist who is thankful for all those who served.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

That leaves a tough decision for liberals…what to ban, what to ban…

How about abortion?

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Humor, Rich. A Navy friend of mine used the term, when we discussing a woman we just hired. I thought it was funny. Please don’t take offense. I’m sure you know plenty of similar jokes about the Army, Navy, Marines and Coast Guard. Inter-military joking happens all the time. I’m just a non-vet, former-Communist who is thankful for all those who served.

I’d be offended if no one here insulted us flyboys (in my case, flyboy by shared uniform). Some of the interservice humor I know would get me banned or a long suspension if I posted it on the Forum.

 

[scipio337]

Most of the rest of the world would disagree.

Personally, I fell no less free because I can’t own a gun. I don’t see a need

Great. When the world is run by democratic concensus, we’ll revisit the issue.

curlycool89:

I can’t decide which one to go with: inferiority complex or compensating for something (as if the Hummers and truck-balls didn’t already give that one away).

Okay. I guess we should stick to Smart Cars and pea shooters?

curlycool89:

And then subsequently lost the War of 1812 to French farmers, barely trained militia, and the Six Nations.

Which ones burned Washington DC?

curlycool89:

IHeck, I can even throw out psychobabble for you: Being in possession of a firearm reinforces someone’s power and independence, it reinforces their masculinity. Take the guns away, and Americans feel impotent. They have reduced their masculinity to possession of an inanimate object.

Again with the masculinity issues? I would say stay away from the armchair psychology. If you don’t see the need for guns, good for you, but don’t contend you have some insight into the motivation of others.

 

[curlycool89]

The countries you list are all affiliated with the English government.

Americans fought a war of independence from England in the 1700s. Why? Because England was tyrannical.

And 300 years later what does this have to do with anything?

I’d take exception to your agreement with the notion that the British government then was tyrannical. The causes of the American War of Independence have far more to do with economic issues than with tyrannical repression of the people living in the then colonies.

Don’t forget the role Canada played. The British government granted Canada the Ohio Valley through the Quebec Act, which was meant to be an “Indian Territory”. Americans (typical) took exception to that fact.

Put it this way: There are about 90 million law abiding gun owners in the U.S. owning about 300 million guns. Not one of those 90 million people has ever killed anyone.

[citation needed]

If they used a gun to kill someone they are not, by definition, law abiding.

That’s a cop-out if I ever did see one, and certainly definition-abuse.

Agree. As it was elsewhere in the “colonies.” Why no War of Canadian (or Aussie or Kiwi, etc.) Independence?

We asked nicely. Less then 100 years later, they were practically begging us to take Newfoundland.

Same reason no one uses the word SUPER POWER when talking of Canada or Australia.

Ego much?

Because Australia and Canada relied on its status as a Commonwealth Realm for its defense?

We also entered WWI before you and got farther on D-Day then anyone else. And Vimy Ridge where the British and French failed. Not exactly relying on “Commonwealth Defense” are we?

Is a man who cannot arm himself free?

I say no. His freedom is an illusion guaranteed by the strength of another.

Why do I feel like I would find philosophy like this in a Star Wars game? Coming from the Sith?

I would also counter that in the Christian sense he is a slave. Only those who surrender everything to God are truly free, including their ability to defend and their very autonomy. It is only when you take God as your only shield that you are truly free.

Armed citizens are the defenders of society. An armed society is a polite society.

So why is it that America is not know as a polite society, and Canada is often called the most polite?

Which ones burned Washington DC?

Redcoats. But I never mentioned the burned of DC, I was talking about the inability of the US Army to penetrate nearly anywhere into Canada.

Again with the masculinity issues? I would say stay away from the armchair psychology. If you don’t see the need for guns, good for you, but don’t contend you have some insight into the motivation of others.

I’m not the one who brought up that it’s ingrained into the American psyche and that you can’t imagine them being taken away.

It sure seems to support it by the fact that people practically throw a fit over the issue and that you can’t imagine yourselves without them.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Which ones burned Washington DC?

The ones who won the war presumably.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Redcoats. But I never mentioned the burned of DC, I was talking about the inability of the US Army to penetrate nearly anywhere into Canada.

At the end of 1812, American efforts to invade Canada had failed on all fronts. The people of Canada, who leaders in Washington had believed would rise up against the British, had instead proved themselves to be stalwart defenders of their land and the Crown. Rather than a simple march to Canada and victory, it was the Americans who had to turn and return home.

 

[rlg94086]

We asked nicely. Less then 100 years later, they were practically begging us to take Newfoundland.

Who doesn’t love a good Newfie joke? If Newfies could read, they would enjoy them too.

 

[wynnejj]

The Lone Ranger knows that guns are a necessity in the western world. Now if they’d only make a law that only silver bullets can be sold. That way people would really think before they shot one.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

And then subsequently lost the War of 1812 to French farmers, barely trained militia, and the Six Nations.

The War of 1812 (1812-1815) was between the Americans and the British and pretty much ended in a stalemate. It was settled by the Treaty of Ghent in 1815 with no clear winner though Americans claim it as a victory because the British left once and for all.

You are most likely referring to the French and Indian War which was fought between 1754–1763, also known as the Seven Years War or La Guerre de la Conquête (“The War of Conquest”) as the Canadians called it. At the time the United States wasn’t even the United States yet; we were still under British rule.

So you’re wrong.

The rest of what you posted is so dumb that I won’t even waste my time on it.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

The War of 1812 (1812-1815) was between the Americans and the British and pretty much ended in a stalemate.

Nonsense. The Americans were turned back at their every attempt to conquer Canada.

It was settled by the Treaty of Ghent in 1815 with no clear winner though Americans claim it as a victory because the British left once and for all.

No. It was the Americans who left Canada once and for all, and who had to give up their hopes for conquering Canada. They never tried it again. Furthermore, having your capitol burned to the ground is not a mark of victory.

 

[scipio337]

We also entered WWI before you and got farther on D-Day then anyone else. And Vimy Ridge where the British and French failed. Not exactly relying on “Commonwealth Defense” are we?

Good for Canada. I didn’t mean to turn this into some masculinity game, but so be it. My point was that historically, Canada has maintained a smaller army than the US, or the Brits. If you claim it has nothing to do with its Commonwealth Realm status, so be it.

Germany benefitted from NATO defense during the Cold War, and even now devotes less resources towards its armed forces. It’s no insult to German military prowess.

curlycool89:

Why do I feel like I would find philosophy like this in a Star Wars game? Coming from the Sith?

Study you must, Jedi become.

monticello.org/site/jefferson/no-freeman-shall-be-debarred-use-arms-quotation

With a little Joseph Conrad paraphrasing thrown in.

I’m not sure where your animosity and condescending attitude comes from. Do you treat all with a different point of view with such disdain?

curlycool89:

Redcoats. But I never mentioned the burned of DC, I was talking about the inability of the US Army to penetrate nearly anywhere into Canada.

Great, but again, something other than “French farmers, barely trained militia, and the Six Nations”.

curlycool89:

I’m not the one who brought up that it’s ingrained into the American psyche and that you can’t imagine them being taken away.

It sure seems to support it by the fact that people practically throw a fit over the issue and that you can’t imagine yourselves without them.

So now gun ownership = truck testicles and Hummers (hopefully, no pun intended)? What on earth does one have to do with the other?

What on earth does firearms being part of a culture have to do with “compensation” or “masculity”?

 

[Lost_Sheep]

Nonsense. The Americans were turned back at their every attempt to conquer Canada.

No. It was the Americans who left Canada once and for all, and who had to give up their hopes for conquering Canada. They never tried it again. Furthermore, having your capitol burned to the ground is not a mark of victory.

Let’s stick to the topic at hand. My point was that Mr. curlycool89 had his wars mixed up. And the rest of his so-called arguments were downright silly.

 

[HisIsTheCrown]

2/3 of the voters said that there should be no more stringent gun controls. Dumbfounding ! Are the no-voters USA citizens?
If yes, much more stringent gun control would not save at least one life? Was not that life worthwhile?
An regarding the victims, the 2nd amendment saved their lives? Obviously not, for they were killed. Should they come to the movies as heavily armed as the murderer was?

 

[maryjk]

2/3 of the voters said that there should be no more stringent gun controls. Dumbfounding ! Are the no-voters USA citizens?

Yes I am an American citizen. And yes, I voted no.

If yes, much more stringent gun control would not save at least one life? Was not that life worthwhile?

The gunman already broke the law simply by bringing the weapons into the theater. Do you think more laws would have stopped him???

An regarding the victims, the 2nd amendment saved their lives? Obviously not, for they were killed. Should they come to the movies as heavily armed as the murderer was?

Taking a weapon into the theater is against the law. So even if they wanted to walk in armed, if they were law abiding citizens, they would have locked their weapon in the car. I know I do, when faced with I sign that labels a location a gun free zone ( also known as a victim zone.)

People need to remember, passing additional laws will not stop people bent on breaking the law.

 

[He_Man]

Yes I am an American citizen. And yes, I voted no.The gunman already broke the law simply by bringing the weapons into the theater. Do you think more laws would have stopped him???
Taking a weapon into the theater is against the law. So even if they wanted to walk in armed, if they were law abiding citizens, they would have locked their weapon in the car. I know I do, when faced with I sign that labels a location a gun free zone ( also known as a victim zone.)

People need to remember, passing additional laws will not stop people bent on breaking the law.

Yes, I totally buy that a guy with orange hair willing to indiscriminately kills a theater full of random people who claims to be “the Joker” would get squeamish about illegally obtaining guns…