12 Dead, 50 Injured in Shooting at "Dark Knight Rises" Premire in Colorado

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Aero
Even belief in American Exceptionalism doesn't mean that people from other countries aren't allowed to make fun of America.

Do you really believe that it's all just "WE DO NOT LIKE AMERICA"?
Individual citizens of the British isle make fun of the European Union, America and everyone else. Citizens of the European Union make fun of Britain and America and everyone else and citizens of America makes fun of everyone else.

[A Zarkin' Frood]

Yeah, I often refuse to believe America is real, I think it's a parody of a real country but it's actually a country people have to live in. /european

Its unhealthy obsession with guns is a legit issue to call out, though. Because it's fucked up like nothing else. It also appears that violent crimes are very common there. At least if my father's latest visit to his homestate of Maine is any indication. And people seem to think helping a bleeding man on the streets is a bad thing or something. I dunno.

E: I also think it's pretty funny you call your "leftist" party liberal, but that's just because you don't know what liberal means, politically speaking.

[Aerozord]

Originally Posted by K-Resh

Aero
Even belief in American Exceptionalism doesn't mean that people from other countries aren't allowed to make fun of America.

sure they are, just as I am free to find it annoying.

Frankly I wouldn't have said anything but his comment had absolutely no purpose beyond insulting american culture as well as lacking any fundamental understanding on why the culture holds such values.

American's dont dislike anti-gun laws because we want guns. Most people against these laws do not even own a weapon that would be illegal. This country was founded on the ideals that agency and choice was worth losing some security and safety. That just because some people abuse the rights granted to them doesn't mean we should all lose them.

If a culture understands and is willing to accept the dangers of granting individuals the ability to access fire arms that does not make the culture stupid or inferior just one with differing values.

[Aerozord]

Originally Posted by A Zarkin' Frood

It also appears that violent crimes are very common there.

its not, violent crimes are the lowest they have been in half a century, it just seems that way because our population is vastly larger.

Originally Posted by A Zarkin' Frood

And people seem to think helping a bleeding man on the streets is a bad thing or something. I dunno.

this isn't an american thing its an everywhere thing. People are hesitant to assist someone out of fear of personal safety and a concern that their involvement would give them personal responsibility. Sadly people are not that productive. Like you will find far more people complaining on the internet about something than actually like calling their congressman about an issue or protesting.

Apathy is truly our greatest social problem. Cause most people are good and honest, they just dont do anything

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Originally Posted by Aerozord

This country was founded on the ideals that agency and choice was worth losing some security and safety. That just because some people abuse the rights granted to them doesn't mean we should all lose them.

This country was founded in 1776. Before the advent of weaponry and tools beyond the imagining of its founders. It was founded with the principle that because the South would have a massive population and electoral advantage otherwise slaves should be counted as 3/5ths of a human being. That the only person with the right to vote should be a white land owner of sufficient education and upbringing.

Aero, I really hate to do this to you but your founders were not perfect human beings. You can't predicate the decisions of a modern nation on the ideas of its several hundred year gone founders.

And lets be absolutely clear, when you say "Some people abuse the rights granted to them" what you mean is that some people take those rights and then use them to directly and purposefully deny other people the right to fucking live.

[Bells]

Let the Military in junction with the Office of the president define 2 Groups of Weaponry: General and Military. With a sub group for "Legal Hunting".

Everything the military defines (with agreement of the executive office) as Military is off the table for anybody that is not in Law Enforcement. Everything else is General and can be acquired. The "Grey" area are weapons that the Military considers Too much for the common civilian but that are usable in Legalized hunting is permitted for that group.

Then you add in Bullet control (When someone acquires ammunition the seller must report back to the legal authorities that will keep a track record of how much ammo someone is buying, from where, when, what type etc). How much Ammo some one may have is something that should be discussed, i personally think there is never any reason for you to have more than 3 Full loads per weapon... hell, 2 should be enough...

Next, everybody that owns more than 2 Firearms and is not a Licensed hunter, must go to the local Military office/Police Dpt once a year for a quick evaluation (just a brief conversation to assess mental health). If the doctor says it's Ok, they keep their license and weapons, if not, all firearms and apprehended until another doctor provides a bill of Mental Health. And you can only acquire a third Firearm presenting that evaluation (a copy to the seller, one to the Military office/Police dept).

Now, i don't know how much of this is actually already being done... but this is the first logic thing that comes to mind. The point is not to ban weapons, but to have more control and knowledge of What someone can have, what someone has, where they are buying, when and how often...

I hardly see that as evil... y'know what? If ever comes a time for the common folk to revolt and raise in arms against their government (and dear lord some of these people out there look like they just can't wait for it to happen...) those who want weapons will get weapons... and regardless of how much you have, good luck facing against the US army with a random Civil Militia... i don't care how many AR-15's you have in your basement, that day you're going down...

And yes, people who want to go around the law will still go around the law... but time and time again when these tragedies show up in the news what calls up to me is just how they never HAD to... i mean, why would you make it easier for them if you can still have your rights while making it harder for the few nuts?

[Gregness]

Originally Posted by Bells

Let the Military in junction with the Office of the president define 2 Groups of Weaponry: General and Military. With a sub group for "Legal Hunting".

Everything the military defines (with agreement of the executive office) as Military is off the table for anybody that is not in Law Enforcement. Everything else is General and can be acquired. The "Grey" area are weapons that the Military considers Too much for the common civilian but that are usable in Legalized hunting is permitted for that group.

And what about those of us who already think that the police thinks too much like a military body?

Originally Posted by Bells

*snip*

And yes, people who want to go around the law will still go around the law... but time and time again when these tragedies show up in the news what calls up to me is just how they never HAD to... i mean, why would you make it easier for them if you can still have your rights while making it harder for the few nuts?

Can I just point out that this is the same sort of logic that software companies use to justify the DRM that is pretty much universally derided? If you support their use of DRM, then that's just your position and I'm cool with that. If you hate DRM, consider the double standards.

(In before 'OMG you can't compare software pirates to mass murders')

[Bells]

Originally Posted by Gregness

And what about those of us who already think that the police thinks too much like a military body?

When you have a chunk of the populace that proudly spouts their "Freedom Fighter" ideals and that continually shouts vitrol about "Armed Civil Defense Against The Government" ... shouldn't they? At least a bit? Law Enforcement personal trained and instructed to everything right up to use of legal lethal force... Social Workers they ain't.

Extremes on both sides, of course... Minorites vs Majorities, i don't have any data to define the size of these chunks... but mind you that the same mentality that rides in the civil body that enrolls intself into the police. The mindset travels up, not down.

Can I just point out that this is the same sort of logic that software companies use to justify the DRM that is pretty much universally derided? If you support their use of DRM, then that's just your position and I'm cool with that. If you hate DRM, consider the double standards.

(In before 'OMG you can't compare software pirates to mass murders')

Yeah... i don't think that logic translates well into what you are trying to say...

[Magus]

I think it's a pointless argument to say that he could have used an alternative weapon. So I could kill someone with a knife or a pistol or homemade explosives, therefore I should be allowed to own assault rifles? I'm not sure which logical fallacy that falls under but I'm pretty sure it is one.

Originally Posted by Gregness

(In before 'OMG you can't compare software pirates to mass murders')

This fallacy is called a false analogy.

[Marelo]

Originally Posted by Gregness

The fact that a tool's function is inherantly dangerous is not grounds enough for making it illegal in my opinion.

Okay, let's make this a really clear-cut hypothetical example, and then walk the logic back to the real world.

What if someone makes a weapon, a technomagical virus or whatever, the release of which is connected to a big red button, that, if pushed, would specifically kill me, and only me? It is designed to cause my death and do nothing else.

Is that "just a tool" the function of which is inherently dangerous but which function is not grounds enough for making it illegal? Should it be freely available to anyone with money and ability to enter a store?

Like, if you agree to that then I'm pretty sure there's nothing to talk about here and you and I have very different ideas about what laws are for and the relative importance of human lives and "freedom."

Now, consider something that doesn't kill a specific person but, instead, kills any human, and is just as easy to operate. It's just a big red button and you point it at who you want dead, and press it, and they're dead. Me, you, Mrs. Jenkins down the street, anyone, as easy as the press of a button on an apparatus vaguely directed in our direction.

Should that mere tool be freely available to the public, to anyone with money and the free time to take a drive to Walmart?

I don't think so. In fact, I'd say that such a tool should be even more strictly controlled and outright banned, 'cause in that case I wouldn't be the only one in danger!

All right, I think you know where I'm going next. What about grenades and RPGs and flamethrowers? They're just tools! Tools designed for death and mayhem. Weapons. Inherently dangerous in ways that shovels and brooms and yes, even knives, even the big knives, are not.

Should we slap price tags on those and stock our shelves with them?

I don't think so. Hopefully you agree.

So my question is... why is the line suddenly drawn at guns, which are also designed solely to kill? Is it just a matter of effectiveness or precision? Because, honestly, I think twelve people dead and dozens more injured, by one person, is a pretty stark reminder that these weapons (not mere "tools" but weapons) are effective at taking and harming human lives, whether most of the gun-purchasing populace uses them that way or not. That's what they're specifically designed to do: Kill and harm animals, of which humans are a member.

Why shouldn't they be as controlled as all these other things, both hypothetical and real? Their being "tools" with no will of their own just doesn't hold water as a defense of how, and which, guns are sold. The word "tool" implies purpose, and tools with dangerous purposes necessitate caution, oversight, and control.