Dark Knight Rises killings in Aurora

[Lemonray]

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.

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.

[Rosencrantz]

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.

[Kriven]

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.

Cars are a necessary evil, as our entire society is built on one's ability to use them to get to and from an occupation. Our society is not built on one's ability to fire a gun.

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.

I don't see why heavy artillery weaponry should not be permissible for use in commercial shooting ranges and may be owned and maintained by the owners of such ranges. So long as the gun is not owned for privatized use and is only brought out in a contained environment, let the enthusiasts go play "Shoot the Shit" in a gallery. They are not to be licensed to individuals for unsupervised private ownership or use.

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.

Our society does need to take some pointers from Europe and take a chillpill.

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.

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.

[Lemonray]

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?

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.

[[robo9]]

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?

False dichotomy. Those are definitely not the only two options the fellow would have.

The problem is is that most of these heavier weapons are military grade stuff. They're generally used by guys who are trained and disciplined well enough as to where they can handle having something as dangerous as these weapons. Most civilians aren't as disciplined or trained.

[Goemar]

A rifle/pistol for defence I'm sure most people would be fine with allowing people to own. But why someone can buy what is pretty much an under-powered M16 I have no idea.

The problem is many Americans have no respect for guns. What ever law is made or changed as long as that remains nothing will change much.
If I was legally allowed to have a gun in my house and someone broke in, too right I'd point that thing at them and shoot if I have to.

But I wouldn't handle it every now and again, shoot at targets for fun, go hunting, show it too friends etc. because here guns are fucking scary. It's such a different attitude it's hard to even explain. If I went to someone's house in America and they just had a pistol lying around I'd be all "Holy shit man there's a smegging gun there!" and pretty uneasy until the thing was put away out of sight.

I wouldn't buy a powerful gun because it's "cool" or anything like that. Here a gun is a last resort, something to take a life. A gun in real life here is a instrument of death, something to be feared and respected.

[Kriven]

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.

The weapons blackmarket of the American continents actually exists almost exclusively because our gun shops can legally sell ridiculously powerful firearms that the other countries have realized is batshit insane to give to civilians. The North and South American blackmarket on firearms is literally picking up these weapons in the US and shipping them down through Central and South America. Finding a blackmarket arms dealer with weaponry more powerful than what can be purchased by civilians in a gun shop is a difficult chore.

[Rosencrantz]

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.

It's not that anyone is capable of legally purchasing firearms; remember that Holmes was a perfectly normal person before he finally snapped and went into a downward spiral that led to him shooting up a movie theater. Like I've been saying, he was on his way to a doctorate in neuroscience. He had no warning signs that he was going to snap until the day it happened. In fact, speculation says he got into the theater because a friend thought he wanted to sneak into the movie, and not once did anyone find suspicion in that.

Don't be afraid that anyone can purchase firearms; be afraid that anyone can outright snap and murder the shit out of things, be it themselves or a mob of people.

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.

You're kind of missing the point I'm making; I'm saying that we shouldn't focus our efforts into something that is clearly irrelevant to the criminal equation. Ray already pretty much proved how this is really irrelevant to criminal activity propagation, and that it won't do anything aside from keeping guns out of the hands of people who have better self-control and who wouldn't commit any form of atrocity. I'd be beating a dead horse if I continue with the "bad people will already do bad things" argument so I won't go ahead with that.

Our society needs to calm down, and that's a shitton more relevant to the problem than guns and gun control are. I'm saying that we shouldn't care about gun control because it's very likely to cause more harm than to do anything to solve the problem. Also, we suck at gun control, anyway.

[HandToeKnee]

I've always said "if you want a gun, join the fucking army."

Anyway, I hope that cunt get gang raped for the next 100 years

[Jamuk]

I'm just wondering, but if James Holmes is found guilty of the killings, what will his sentence be? I don't know much about American law and capital punishment, but I know that James Earl Ray (MLK's killer) escaped the death penalty by pleading guilty. That was in Tennesse though while this was in Colorado; does it depend on state?

[Gwen]

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.

[Goemar]

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.

And thus costs the tax-payer a crap load of money. You can't win either way, it's that simple.

[Tellis]

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.

[Goemar]

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.

That's what I get for being in the UK and assuming things...

[alexmach1]

welp