Dark Knight Rises shootings

[Leopig]

Don't ban guns in America, let them fucking kill each other. The world will be a better place for it.

[soldant]

No doubt that access to things like assault/battle rifles or automatic weapons do help enable this sort of activity, but as some of you have pointed out, simple access alone does not account for criminal motivation. The old adage "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is true to an extent.

Australia has traditionally had a fairly low incidence of violent crime for the most part, including pre-Port Arthur when gun ownership was common and hardly regulated. Following Martin Bryant going batshit insane and killing all those people, weapon ownership laws have become steadily more restrictive to the point where any sort of firearm ownership (and an Airsoft rifle for example is classified as a firearm, and it's rumoured that even non functional replicas will be classified as firearms) requires a very good reason (at a bare minimum competing in target shooting) and for the most part only covers a limited selection of weapons. It does vary from state to state slightly though.

Curiously though most firearms-related deaths in Australia have typically been suicides, which did fall following the introduction of tighter gun laws, but suicides overall didn't follow the same trend (suggesting people just swapped to other methods). It's unclear if the laws really had any effect here because gun-related crime was fairly low to begin with. You're more likely to get stabbed or bashed (to the point where plenty of concealable weapons, such as batons or flick knives, are also banned or regulated). There have been a spate of incidents on the Gold Coast here in Queensland involving firearms, but I'd speculate that they're unregistered and probably weren't purchased here anyway (good luck getting a pistol, you need a concealed weapons license and the cops enforce it to the letter). It's not clear whether the effect of the tougher legislation has really done anything worthwhile at all - illegal firearms are more likely to be used in a crime since they're easier to acquire. That said automatic weapons have been banned since the 1920s or 30s or something, can't remember. Most semi-autos and military-style battle rifles were made illegal following the Port Arthur Massacre. If anything its primary effect has made it harder for people with a legitimate interest in target shooting to take up the sport. I really wanted to do target shooting but even for a basic .22 bolt action rifle it's a high cost and major commitment.

Plenty of other countries can manage with lax firearms laws and yet not have the same amount of gun-related violence. It just seems to be something that's part of the US. Ignoring that, they still don't account for the fact that some people just want to kill other people. Whether you implement tough gun control or not, you're never going to get around that fact. They'll steal them, they'll buy them off the black market, or they'll use other methods to acquire them. Legislate all you like, but as with the more dangerous illicit drugs like Ice, they'll still get the goods.

[fiddlesticks]

Don't ban guns in America, let them fucking kill each other. The world will be a better place for it.

Please don't post in this thread anymore. Unless you were joking, in which case please don't post in this thread anymore.

This is a horrible tragedy, but what makes it even worse is that the media gave the shooter exactly the attention he wanted to have. I'm sure most of you are familiar with this clip from Newspipe with Charlie Brooker, but I'll link it just in case. It shows exactly why making this a huge topic in the news is a bad idea and only serves to inspire copycats.

[Kadayi]

Owning a firearm does not a redneck make.

I'm pondering more the attitude of 'you can take my gun, when you prise it from my cold dead fingers'. There are very few real instances for needing a gun outside of the military, law enforcement or animal control (rogue bears and the like).

Europe is irrelevant to this discussion. It's part of our culture and it's part of our constitution, the fundamentals upon which this nation was founded.

I believe slavery was a big part of your history as well, but you seem to have moved on past that. Also given the model of Europe proves that less guns = less gun related homicides I'd say it's entirely relevant. I'm sure the many families of the innumerable victims of gun related homicides, let alone survivors crippled from shootings are fully behind guns still being readily and easily accessible.

Access to firearms is irrelevant. The country is already flooded with them and we border Mexico. You know what else is illegal? Drugs and we have plenty of those. Making them illegal would do nothing but take them out of the hands of non-criminals.

I'd say stoners are less of a problem than semi automatic rifles in the hands of republican Tea partiers tbh. The vast majority of problems with drugs by on large relate to their illegality and the fact that they are sold and distributed by criminal networks who aren't afraid to engage in violence. Certainly with all drugs there are health aspects, but then again that's equally true with alcohol and tobacco.

A large portion of the US military ARE those "rednecks". You severely underestimate how important the second amendment is to people in America.

Worth the annual sacrifice in terms of domestic homicides?

The biggest problem is one of a "slippery slope". I know it's seen as a logical fallacy in many cases, but it is applicable here. Constitutional rights are held sacred, the argument can (and has) been made that if you take one of them away, which one will be next. This is why many people are hesitant to vote for a politician who support stricter gun control.

No I'd still go with the logical fallacy. This idea that the fine people who wrote the constitution were somehow omniscient and prescient as regards the future of their country and therefore wholly beyond questioning or any form of reappraisal is absurd. Laws change and are repealed all the time as they become outmoded. This idea that there are any sacred cows is dinosaur thinking.

As for your question "Why?", it doesn't matter why, that's just the way it is.

I'd say it's a fair question and deserves a fair answer.

[Wolfenswan]

Rednecks Vs the US military war machine...my money would be on the Marines tbh.

You should read DMZ.

[Kadayi]

You should read DMZ.

In that regard I'll stick to non fiction. Much as I like the odd comic here and there as entertainment, they're rarely grounded in any sense of actual reality (why isn't Rick 'one hand' Grimes dead already?). If civilian uprisings were that easy, innumerable dictators around the world would of been overthrown years ago. For every French revolution, there have been dozens of swift and bloody pogroms.

[Wolfenswan]

In that regard I'll stick to non fiction. Much as I like the odd comic here and there as entertainment, they're rarely grounded in any sense of actual reality (why isn't Rick 'one hand' Grimes dead already?). If civilian uprisings were that easy, innumerable dictators around the world would of been overthrown years ago. For every French revolution, there have been dozens of swift and bloody pogroms.

I was recommending it for it's entertainment value, not for it's deep insights.

[Hypernetic]

I believe slavery was a big part of your history as well, but you seem to have moved on past that. Also given the model of Europe proves that less guns = less gun related homicides I'd say it's entirely relevant. I'm sure the many families of the innumerable victims of gun related homicides, let alone survivors crippled from shootings are fully behind guns still being readily and easily accessible.



I'd say stoners are less of a problem than semi automatic rifles in the hands of republican Tea partiers tbh. The vast majority of problems with drugs by on large relate to their illegality and the fact that they are sold and distributed by criminal networks who aren't afraid to engage in violence. Certainly with all drugs there are health aspects, but then again that's equally true with alcohol and tobacco.



Worth the annual sacrifice in terms of domestic homicides?



No I'd still go with the logical fallacy. This idea that the fine people who wrote the constitution were somehow omniscient and prescient as regards the future of their country and therefore wholly beyond questioning or any form of reappraisal is absurd. Laws change and are repealed all the time as they become outmoded. This idea that there are any sacred cows is dinosaur thinking.



I'd say it's a fair question and deserves a fair answer.

1) Oh yeah great point, why didn't I think of that? Oh wait, it's because there was a CIVIL WAR when they did. The bloodiest war in American history was because the government wanted to take away people's slaves. Let me point out that unlike the right to bear arms, there was no amendment to the constitution granting people the right to own slaves.

2) You are completely ignorant if you don't think drugs are a problem. Drug related homicides, drug related crimes, addiction and all that comes with it, prison overcrowding, gangs, etc, etc, etc. Come on now, we're not talking about some hippies smoking pot in a field when we talk about drugs.

3) Loaded question that assumes all gun related homicides would have been prevented had guns been illegal. Not answering it.

4) They also couldn't have envisioned radio, TV, or the internet when they wrote the first amendment. What is your point? One does not simply change the constitution. Call it "dinosaur thinking" if you like, I don't think anyone cares though. Try coming to Washington and telling that to congress, see if they agree.

5) It is what it is man. Answering your question won't change that.

[gwathdring]

I can buy a dirty handgun for very cheap in Philadelphia. And no, you don't want to keep the gun you've used in a crime, that is beyond stupid. You might as well just turn yourself in if you plan on keeping the weapon around.

No, you do need illegal weapons for illegal uses, unless you don't care about getting caught. Finding an illegal gun is about as easy as buying a box of cereal from the grocery store in pretty much any city.

Not everyone who commits a crime is smart about it. They make mistakes. They don't always plan ahead. Keep in mind, too, that illegal weapon sales aren't always of illegal weapons--they can be of otherwise legal weapons stripped of identification and resold without even the meager restrictions ordinarily put on weapon sales. Also, our gun companies supply a lot of weapons to Mexico's (and sometimes, our ill-conceived government sting opperations, apparently) and the rest of South America's illicit gun market. Often through perfectly legal sales to formal and informal third-party arms dealers.

P.S. lol @ the constitution being an opinion. Is that what you'll say when they start censoring the media too?

Constitutionality is an opinion. The Consitution is a very old document and treating it as some immutable legal standard is unhelpful. It is our highest form of law; it is the law that controls our law. So it's important. But that's why it can't stand the same way for 200 years. It needs a good number of updates and reclarifications--especially on topics as specific as gun control. Even if you believe it ought to be taken literally and read simply, it's a little too late for us to do that. We have some rather powerful structures in place that come from reinterpretations of the constitution--the Supreme Court included. If we want to start taking it more simply and absolutely, we need a completely new draft. Some countries do that; redraft their constitutions. We change ours too rarely to take it at its word, I think.

[Nalano]

No doubt that access to things like assault/battle rifles or automatic weapons do help enable this sort of activity, but as some of you have pointed out, simple access alone does not account for criminal motivation. The old adage "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is true to an extent.

Australia has traditionally had a fairly low incidence of violent crime for the most part, including pre-Port Arthur when gun ownership was common and hardly regulated. Following Martin Bryant going batshit insane and killing all those people, weapon ownership laws have become steadily more restrictive to the point where any sort of firearm ownership (and an Airsoft rifle for example is classified as a firearm, and it's rumoured that even non functional replicas will be classified as firearms) requires a very good reason (at a bare minimum competing in target shooting) and for the most part only covers a limited selection of weapons. It does vary from state to state slightly though.

Curiously though most firearms-related deaths in Australia have typically been suicides, which did fall following the introduction of tighter gun laws, but suicides overall didn't follow the same trend (suggesting people just swapped to other methods). It's unclear if the laws really had any effect here because gun-related crime was fairly low to begin with. You're more likely to get stabbed or bashed (to the point where plenty of concealable weapons, such as batons or flick knives, are also banned or regulated). There have been a spate of incidents on the Gold Coast here in Queensland involving firearms, but I'd speculate that they're unregistered and probably weren't purchased here anyway (good luck getting a pistol, you need a concealed weapons license and the cops enforce it to the letter). It's not clear whether the effect of the tougher legislation has really done anything worthwhile at all - illegal firearms are more likely to be used in a crime since they're easier to acquire. That said automatic weapons have been banned since the 1920s or 30s or something, can't remember. Most semi-autos and military-style battle rifles were made illegal following the Port Arthur Massacre. If anything its primary effect has made it harder for people with a legitimate interest in target shooting to take up the sport. I really wanted to do target shooting but even for a basic .22 bolt action rifle it's a high cost and major commitment.

Plenty of other countries can manage with lax firearms laws and yet not have the same amount of gun-related violence. It just seems to be something that's part of the US. Ignoring that, they still don't account for the fact that some people just want to kill other people. Whether you implement tough gun control or not, you're never going to get around that fact. They'll steal them, they'll buy them off the black market, or they'll use other methods to acquire them. Legislate all you like, but as with the more dangerous illicit drugs like Ice, they'll still get the goods.

Canada has high ownership rates of hunting rifles and shotguns and low ownership rates of handguns. America's rates are reversed. That may have something to do with it: You don't go hunting with handguns.

[Kadayi]

Oh yeah great point, why didn't I think of that? Oh wait, it's because there was a CIVIL WAR when they did. The bloodiest war in American history was because the government wanted to take away people's slaves. Let me point out that unlike the right to bear arms, there was no amendment to the constitution granting people the right to own slaves.

The point is things change. A difficult concept for you to understand given your inherent refusal to countenance anyone else's opinions, but a truth nevertheless.

You are completely ignorant if you don't think drugs are a problem. Drug related homicides, drug related crimes, addiction and all that comes with it, prison overcrowding, gangs, etc, etc, etc. Come on now, we're not talking about some hippies smoking pot in a field when we talk about drugs.

I think I pretty much covered the fact that most of the present problems with drugs relate to their illegality. If it wasn't for the fact that they were illegal, but were instead legally controlled, regulated and distributed (like tobacco & alcohol) then far less lives would be ruined as a result of them in the long run.

Loaded question that assumes all gun related homicides would have been prevented had guns been illegal. Not answering it.

I dare say the drop off would be considerable. Guns make killing someone extremely easy, especially is situations such as this particular one.

What is your point? One does not simply change the constitution.

Given your talking about the 'second amendment' I find that statement quite hilarious tbh.

It is what it is man. Answering your question won't change that.

I think the answer is can't justify it, but of course we're presented with yet another case of Hypernetic running away from the hard questions (a familiar tale).

Canada has high ownership rates of hunting rifles and shotguns and low ownership rates of handguns. America's rates are reversed. That may have something to do with it: You don't go hunting with handguns.

Indeed. It's a lot easier to hide a handgun on your person for sure.

[gwathdring]

Let's try not to get personal here. Things are getting a bit snippy, so it might be good if we're all a little more mindful of our next posts.

[zay]

I don't understand how anyone could see this incident in Denver and still think that the USA's gun laws don't need to be changed. How many more shootings do there need to be before people get it through their heads that the Second Amendment is a relic? If this guy hadn't had such easy access to guns, it would've been much harder for him to commit this massacre. If you raise the barrier to entry for massacres then fewer of them will happen. And Hypernetic, maybe illegal guns are easy and cheap to access now, but if guns are outlawed then supply of them will plummet and prices will go through the roof. So outlawing guns will restrict access, even if a black market still exists.

[Kadayi]

Let's try not to get personal here. Things are getting a bit snippy, so it might be good if we're all a little more mindful of our next posts.

Personal? All a man is in this life is the truth to his words, so where does that leave Hyper exactly? There is no philosophy or reason to his beliefs. No articulate justification. No central thesis that we can take on board (even though we might not agree with it). All there appears to be is a clear contempt for the opinions of others ('you're ignorant' 'but We know better' ' Europe is irrelevant' etc, etc), and a dogged refusal to reconsider something when faced with the hard facts. At best he's a paper tiger and at worse a poor troll.

[gwathdring]

Personal? All a man is in this life is the truth to his words, so where does that leave Hyper exactly? There is no philosophy or reason to his beliefs. No articulate justification. No central thesis that we can take on board (even though we might not agree with it). All there appears to be is a clear contempt for the opinions of others ('you're ignorant' 'but We know better' ' Europe is irrelevant' etc, etc), and a dogged refusal to reconsider something when faced with the hard facts. At best he's a paper tiger and at worse a poor troll.

No need to make this about philosophy. Just treat with the arguments, and if you really think there's nothing to respond to, don't respond.

[gwathdring]

I don't understand how anyone could see this incident in Denver and still think that the USA's gun laws don't need to be changed. How many more shootings do there need to be before people get it through their heads that the Second Amendment is a relic? If this guy hadn't had such easy access to guns, it would've been much harder for him to commit this massacre. If you raise the barrier to entry for massacres then fewer of them will happen. And Hypernetic, maybe illegal guns are easy and cheap to access now, but if guns are outlawed then supply of them will plummet and prices will go through the roof. So outlawing guns will restrict access, even if a black market still exists.

I believe very firmly in gun control. But I think it's unfair to point to a mass shooting as a reason for changing gun laws. This has happened before, and elsewhere, with varying rates of gun ownership in the general population surrounding the event. Armed robbery, handgun incidents -- that's related to gun control. This? He would have found other weapons.

I agree though that reducing legal gun ownership reduces illegal gun access indirectly.

[Hypernetic]

Personal? All a man is in this life is the truth to his words, so where does that leave Hyper exactly? There is no philosophy or reason to his beliefs. No articulate justification. No central thesis that we can take on board (even though we might not agree with it). All there appears to be is a clear contempt for the opinions of others ('you're ignorant' 'but We know better' ' Europe is irrelevant' etc, etc), and a dogged refusal to reconsider something when faced with the hard facts. At best he's a paper tiger and at worse a poor troll.

These aren't my beliefs, these are the facts. I'm 100% ok with gun control, not with outright banning. I do believe in the basic principles as to why the second amendment was added in the first place.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter what you or I think, it matters what most people in America think, which are the points I've been outlining in this thread.

P.S. I forgive you for not understanding how the US Government works.

[soldant]

Canada has high ownership rates of hunting rifles and shotguns and low ownership rates of handguns. America's rates are reversed. That may have something to do with it: You don't go hunting with handguns.

I guess that's a fair point, and it probably holds true here. Then again over here target/sport shooting is more prevalent than hunting (the only real "hunting" would be for culling pests), and handguns also have their target shooting events. That said, they still have easy access to weapons and ammunition, particularly compared to here, so if the gun-control proponents were right in their "guns kill people" ranting, then Canada should be shooting itself to hell and back. But they're not. Neither did Australia back when our gun laws were "Just pick whatever you like mate!"

I agree though that reducing legal gun ownership reduces illegal gun access indirectly.

How? Here in Australia even if a licensed firearm is stolen (and very few are) and isn't recovered, the chances of it being involved in a crime is incredibly low. Again I can't speak for the US which seems to be a special case with violence, but at least over here firearms aren't as big of an issue. Why shouldn't I be able to purchase a rifle for target shooting? On the remote chance that I might be the one that turns it on another person? Why not take away all my knives or rocks or anything to remove any chance of an attack. Hell, alcohol contributes to a significant portion of both crimes and personal accidents, why don't we ban it too? And all those people demanding the legalisation of drugs like Ice which causes long lasting disease or contributes to death, clearly they're wrong too and drugs should stay illegal.

The problem is deeper than simply trying to remove legal gun access. That's a barely-functional band-aid solution which entirely fails to recognise two things:
- Most crime is ultimately a social event which has underlying reasons that need to be addressed.
- Sometimes, like in this case, or with Ted Bundy, or with Martin Bryant, you just get a batshit insane nutter who is behind rehabilitation, beyond early recognition, beyond intervention, and will go out to kill no matter how hard to legislate.

If someone wants to kill someone else (and remember most murders aren't 'massacres' like this one, 'massacres' are one-off events which you're not going to be able to prevent most of the time) they'll find a way. Firearms might be one method of choice, but they can just as easily grab a knife and stab you as well.

[zay]

Why shouldn't I be able to purchase a rifle for target shooting? On the remote chance that I might be the one that turns it on another person? Why not take away all my knives or rocks or anything to remove any chance of an attack.

Because having guns easily available makes it so much easier for violent attacks to be so much worse. Do you really think this massacre could have occurred if this man didn't have a gun?

The problem here is that lunatics have guns. It isn't easy to cure every lunatic out there, so maybe the best solution is just to take away their guns.

[gwathdring]

Hell, alcohol contributes to a significant portion of both crimes and personal accidents, why don't we ban it too?

We did. It didn't work. But we totally tried that, so perhaps that's worth brownie points or something for being open to difficult (if slightly crazy) solutions.

The problem is deeper than simply trying to remove legal gun access. That's a barely-functional band-aid solution which entirely fails to recognise two things:
- Most crime is ultimately a social event which has underlying reasons that need to be addressed.
- Sometimes, like in this case, or with Ted Bundy, or with Martin Bryant, you just get a batshit insane nutter who is behind rehabilitation, beyond early recognition, beyond intervention, and will go out to kill no matter how hard to legislate.

If someone wants to kill someone else (and remember most murders aren't 'massacres' like this one, 'massacres' are one-off events which you're not going to be able to prevent most of the time) they'll find a way. Firearms might be one method of choice, but they can just as easily grab a knife and stab you as well.

I agree that it's more complicated. I've said as much already. I agree with most of your sentiment, but I have two points of contention:

First, the US produces and manufactures most of the guns, illegal and otherwise, available in North America. Making it harder to buy guns legally makes it harder for them to end up on the illegal market. I'm not talking about theft of legal weapons. I'm talking about arms sales to arms merchants, third-party dealers, and black-market resellers.

Second, this:

That's a barely-functional band-aid solution

. It's not a band-aid. It's not barely functional. It's not supposed to eliminate murder or even mass-murder. It's supposed to reduce gun violence in general. These sorts of events? Not much we can do about them. But armed robbery? Accidental gun death? Domestic arguments in which someone goes for a gun? We can do something about that. Let's say we don't decrease the incidence of these events--we just change the weapon used. Guns are far more lethal than knives. Victims of stabbings are more likely to live. Guns are about as lethal as it gets. Someone decides they want to kill someone else and plans it out? That person will try to make sure death occurs and find a way to avoid law enforcement. Not much to be done except making sure people don't get to that point psychologically or go for broke with surveillance and security. But in a lot of other weapon-assisted crimes, we can give first responders a better chance. Or help cut down the scale of violent crime.

There are problems with gun control and it's certainly not a complete solution. But it's not an ineffectual band-aid to a social problem. It's a relatively good step towards fixing the practical problems caused, in turn, by underlying social issues.