Well their actually would be less crime if everyone owned guns
The problem is where you would be allowed to bring them. Movie theaters are most likely a big no-no, but that's not going to stop people like this. Even if everyone had a gun, there will be places they legally won't be able to bring them and that is where the unstable and homicidal will decide to strike.
BRAVO! It's nice to see some people on here with the stones to counter-attack the mass BS-ing that gets propagated about guns.
As to the video NoName posted: While I don't agree 100% with everything the guy said, he's pretty much spot on about how things are going to play out now and after most other tragedies like this one. People fixate on playing the blame game so that they can feel good and delude themselves into thinking that they've actually done something substantial and worthwhile, when in reality they're only exacerbating the given problem by directing attention away from it and muddying up the waters by hollering about whatever agenda they're pushing. It's your right to have an opinion or agenda - just don't use it to whistle up a crap storm and draw attention to yourself at the expense of the victims of a tragedy and the people affected by its outward ripples.
I gotta vent here. One of my closest friends, AJ Boit, was one of the victims in the attack. I'm so angry that his life was cut short, by this madman. I've known AJ for the last few years, and he was a great guy. It brings me to tears every time I remember the things that we had done together. We had even graduated together. If you were there at the theater, you would have nightmares. Words can't express what had happened. R.I.P AJ and to all the other victims.
You know what's the saddest part...they were innocent civilians. They were trying to enjoy a good movie...He was also a doctor. From doctor to gun man. How sad? Also, the news said that he had a lot of bullets or something... -.-
Also, the news said that he had a lot of bullets or something... -.-
Actually the only reason he stopped shooting was because the shotgun ran out, the rifle jammed, and he was having difficulties loading and firing the glock. Many more people could have died. As shootings go, this one had the potential to be much, much, worse. Usually you get a bad shooting with one or two shooters with one gun. This guy had 3, plus body armor, plus tear gas. So, who sold to this guy?
simply came whit the mailman. mailorder companys are not allowed to check the mails. so you can't blame them. he could buy 4 weapons show all 4 companys he didn't had 1 yet and then get 4 weapons by mail. + 6000 bullets. and the traps also came by mail.
it's just to easy to get a ****load of guns legaly in the usa. the whole we need guns or els we are not safe argument sounds stupid anyway.
what? he was 22 or something. ever seen a 22 year old docter? if you did then i instandly understand why you guys don't want to be forced to pay for healtcare. the docters do not get enoufg education to preform well. xD
btw if he's a docter he might get away whit it because he was practising lobotomy or something like that. (remember it's the usa )
the docters do not get enoufg education to preform well. xD
The youngest certified doctor I know of was able to earn his degree at the age of 21 in one of the most prestigious medical schools in his area (which I believe was either Japan or Korea) and he was also a black belt in Taekwon-do (which is Korean, so I'd imagine he was indeed Korean).
he might get away whit it because he was practising lobotomy or something like that. (remember it's the usa
That's a frivolous comment, don't crack a joke like that in future. If you're not joking, then don't be so stupid in future either.
On a more important note, I offer my condolences to every victim of the attack - directly or indirectly and especially those known here who have to deal with their loss, or the stress of what had happened. It certainly wasn't fair, and it wasn't anticipated.
As for the entire scenario with guns and the like. People are civilized enough to be trusted with weapons, and it would especially help in the case of self-defence against someone like this. You also shouldn't breach their right to carry a weapon on the basis that you would have people like this. Especially considering there would often be flaws in the system that would allow them to attain weapons anyway -- having the public able to fight back (effectively) I think is a viable and fair line of defence.
Also, in the case of theaters -- I'd imagine in the tribunal there would be issued searches for crowded areas now, or something. If not I could imagine many theaters hiring for some proper defence, considering it's a crowded area and that the speed of reaction is essential.
btw if he's a docter he might get away whit it because he was practising lobotomy or something like that. (remember it's the usa )
Not funny. Not only do you take a cheap shot at the USA, you also mock the lives lost in the tragedy. For shame.
I partly agree with what NoName is saying on the issue of gun control. However, I also agree that there need to be some limitations. The Second Amendment was written and approved in a time where a gun took 60 seconds to load, and most deaths in war were not weapon related. The Founding Fathers intended for people to be able to protect themselves against any tyrannical government, hence the right to a militia.
There are problems though, when you take into effect the advances in military technology since the 1780s. I could claim that the 2nd Amendment allows me to have a nuclear warhead under my basement. I'd be called bonkers in front of the national media. However, if I want to quietly buy a half-dozen semi automatic pistols from a local gun store, and a couple hundred rounds of ammo, no one would say boo. I'd go through a simple background check, and then I'd be given the gun. There is a problem with that. When buying a gun, not only should a background check be performed on your criminal past, they should also check your psychological past and profile. If there is none on record, you get one at your own expense. Also, the types of guns need to be limited. We cannot have people running around with semi auto rifles and shotguns. At most, hunting rifles and pistols-of any type except full auto-should be legal for hunting and self defense. I fully intend to buy a gun when I am allowed to, however I will only purchase one pistol, most likely of the semi auto type.
My point is this: We need to have more checks and balances on the Second Amendment, lest more tragedies like this occur more frequently.
Your anti guns crap is wrong guys. They were legal guns. Nothing illegal. The only illegal thing he did was he got a speeding ticket once.
I was talking about guns in general. Not necessarily this guy alone.
@NoNameC68 I understand that taking an entire population's gun rights away is bad for those who weren't involved, but wouldn't you give up some freedoms for guaranteed protection?
Again, the Constitution promised that John Locke's ideas for true freedom would be considered, but also of the ideas of Rousseau. I know I talk about these guys a lot, but the entire constitution was based off the ideas of 4 philosophers: Locke, Rousseau, Hobbes, and Montesquieu. If you ever, and I mean EVER want to understand the Constitution, you have to know who these guys are.
We could ban cars. BAM, almost 0 deaths caused by car accidents.
Cars have a use.
What use do guns provide? Sport, and maybe hunting? I mean *maybe* as in hardly ever.
Doesn't matter, people should still be allowed to hunt.
Free will.
Give up freedoms for protection.
When you look at gun crimes, you have to look at why the gun crimes were committed. If someone uses a gun to protect a gang's turd so they can sell drugs, then the issue isn't guns, it's the drug war. When you have someone who shoots a rapist, the problem isn't the fact that the man had a gun, it's merely a response to a rapist and his actions. This man was a sociopath. This is a rare instance.
It's rare, but it happens. Guns are frequently used in crimes. It doesn't matter of what the murder rate is, it's what the crime rate is.
California is one of the largest states and it has the highest population, so expect these numbers to be a little inflated. With that being said, as stated before, California also has some of the strictest gun control policies. A vast majority of these aren't registered. There is no way that you are going to be able to ban guns and have everyone follow the law legally.
It's been done in England and Australia as far as I know. There is very little gun-violence over there.
Well their actually would be less crime if everyone owned guns. Think, what idiot would steel things if guns were legal for everyone? That would basically be suicide. I think I heard in history class that an old contry once had legal guns and the crime was incredibly low. The only problem is the 1%
Give everyone guns? That wouldn't work. You'd have gangs get together, grow, gain more members, and you could essentially have armies charging through streets.
Recently on the news, there was a coffee shop or diner that was being held up by a small group of armed thieves. When they turned their backs, an elderly patron happened to be legally open carrying a pistol and fired, scaring the crap out of them. They ran away. Crisis averted.
Freak accident. If any of those robbers were mentally unbalanced in any way, nature or nurture, they could have killed her.
he could buy 4 weapons show all 4 companys he didn't had 1 yet and then get 4 weapons by mail. + 6000 bullets. and the traps also came by mail.
That would be so unbelievably illegal it makes me cry. Guns purchased off the internet still need to be attained through licensed FFL holders (gun stores), same with ammunition.
