(07-25-2012, 08:26 PM)Kriven Wrote: Sure, civilians are entitled to firearms. I don't think they're entitled to five. Two firearms per licensee, only hand guns (defense) and hunting rifles (Uh, duh) need to be available. Anything else is simply to masturbate yourself with an ammunition chain.

(07-26-2012, 01:48 AM)Rλy Wrote: You could apply this argument to cars.

Nobody "needs" more than one car, and they kill more people accidentally than guns do on purpose, so surely, we should make it against the law to own more than one car? Any more than one car is just pointless extravagance. Plus if you have a heavier, more powerful car, death/serious injury would be more likely in the event of a accident, so those cars should be banned, too. Unless you're the government; then, it's okay.

Also, what about shotguns? Why shouldn't people be allowed those? What about enthusiasts and collectors who want to own lots of guns?

One other thing. You do not need lots of weapons to kill lots of people. The Columbine shooters, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, had four guns, and a bunch of homemade explosive devices between them. They murdered 12 students, and a teacher. Almost a decade later, Cho Seung-Hui murdered 32 people in the Virginia Tech massacre using only two handguns, one of which was a .22.

A proficient killer is more deadly than any gun.

(07-26-2012, 02:22 AM)Rosencrantz Wrote: Also, we at the United States kind of suck when it comes to stress levels. We're on the edge on a consistent basis because we're always rushing to do things, always have deadlines, always need to be somewhere, doing something, anything... it's a legitimate mess and it's no wonder why people can just snap under all the pressure.

James Holmes here snapped because he was bombing out of his Ph.D. To put this in perspective, he bought one of his rifles after failing an important oral exam.

Now, that's not really all that big of a deal to some of you guys, but our college system in America kind of sucks. We pay a lot of money to attend these higher-end universities, and failing a class means anything ranging from a loss of scholarship to the postponement of graduation. Usually, if your GPA is awesome, you don't need to worry about a scholarship loss. However, postponing graduation is horrible; this means that you have to pay a ton of tuition money to make up the class, and I don't believe scholarships will cover make-up semesters so you're stuck paying for the retake at an additional cost out of your pocket. This was probably the case with James.

Guns and gun control aren't the problem here; the problem is because we're crammed into a really painfully stressful country, where we have the desire to succeed and to succeed at an inhumanly accelerated pace. This kind of pressure isn't easy to bear, and people unfortunately snap. And, when they snap, they snap with weapons. It's stupid to try and ban guns when we could very well try to make people happier and less stressed out here.

(07-26-2012, 02:55 AM)Kriven Wrote: Yes, people can kill without guns or with lesser guns. And people can kill a lot with lesser guns. That doesn't mean all the heavier guns should be legally purchasable.

(07-26-2012, 05:06 AM)Rλy Wrote:

(07-26-2012, 02:55 AM)Kriven Wrote: Yes, people can kill without guns or with lesser guns. And people can kill a lot with lesser guns. That doesn't mean all the heavier guns should be legally purchasable.

Let's say Holmes had been (legally) limited to a handgun and a bolt-action rifle.

He would have had the choice between resorting to the black market for a weapon more capable of killing large numbers of people (and as a result, may have acquired something more powerful than a semi-auto AR-15), and using explosives to kill as many people as possible.
Perhaps, he would have planted timed explosives in the theatre, then walked out and waited for them to detonate so he could start sniping people as they ran out of the theatre?

(07-26-2012, 05:06 AM)Rλy Wrote: Let's say Holmes had been (legally) limited to a handgun and a bolt-action rifle.

He would have had the choice between resorting to the black market for a weapon more capable of killing large numbers of people (and as a result, may have acquired something more powerful than a semi-auto AR-15), and using explosives to kill as many people as possible.
Perhaps, he would have planted timed explosives in the theatre, then walked out and waited for them to detonate so he could start sniping people as they ran out of the theatre?

Also, I don't see what is wrong with normal people owning powerful weapons like assault rifles and auto shotguns, to defend themselves and their families. If I could, I would defend my home with the most destructive weapon I was able to wield.

(07-26-2012, 02:55 AM)Kriven Wrote: Whether guns and gun control are the problem here, I don't know. I do know that Holmes legally purchased his AR-15, and that is terrifying to me. Not that he, that specific individual did it, but that anyone, absolutely anyone, can go in and purchase such a powerful weapon. That's scary to me. I don't like that.

(07-26-2012, 02:55 AM)Kriven Wrote: I don't see why the issues of stress and gun control even need to affect one another. Why does stricter gun controls mean we aren't approaching the issue of a high-pressure society? I don't understand why you're suggesting that guns can't be better controlled and regulated, while also tackling the entirely unrelated issue of making our society chill the fuck out.

(07-27-2012, 10:36 AM)Harley Quinn Wrote: I hope he doesn't get sentenced to a death penalty. I hope he gets life and rots in jail instead of getting an easy life of solitude and endless appeals.

(07-27-2012, 08:23 PM)Tellis Wrote: Except that in almost every situation the death penalty actually costs more than a life sentence. Due to death being considered so much more severe, more time is spent on the case, and, in general, there's more time, money and effort going into the seeking of a death sentence. So... no, it actually doesn't cost the taxpayer more. Common misconception.