<p>There’s a reason this happens all the time in America but not Europe or Canada. If Americans wanted to stop this kind of thing happening they would ban the carrying of firearms - the fact that so many people defend guns after these massacres occur is very disturbing.</p>
<p>Does it not bother you that the US has the highest prison population but also the highest levels of crime in the western world? That to me is definitive proof that simply chucking criminals in jail doesn’t work.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course, but the fact remains that these events happen on an almost yearly basis in the US whereas they are extremely rare in the UK.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do not expect you to be relieved that this incident happened in the states, but you should be relieved that you’re far less likely to die in a shooting because of where you live. I celebrate the fact that I’ve never seen a gun, I think it’s something to be proud of - if more Americans felt the same way there would be less gun crime there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is ridiculous; everyone who shares this opinion has blood on their hands as far as I’m concerned. It is not a coincidence that there are more killers in the US than any other country, it is not because Americas are more disposed to kill than the British or French - they just have more opportunity because there are no restrictions on carrying guns.</p>
<p>Dionysus58, your views are incredibly oversimplified. You think access to guns is the reason for a relatively high murder rate in the US? You don’t think it has anything to do with the significant gang problem here that most other countries don’t have? The significant gang problem that is directly related to the ridiculous “war on drugs” that we have, which in turn is directly related to the high number of prisoners (many of whom are there for drug-related and/or non-violent offences) and the crazy “mandatory minimum” sentencing laws we have so prosecutors and legislators can appear to be “tough on crime” in the eyes of simple-minded people… Or the private prison industry that supports such laws to keep themselves in business. Or… or… or… ad infinitum. </p>
<p>Banning guns won’t solve the problem - as someone else mentioned, if someone wants to kill people, they’re going to do it no matter what the law says - to think otherwise is amazingly naive.</p>
<p>Also - IBTL - Mods, has there been any discussion of reopening the politics board? I know there were problems that caused its closure, but don’t see how a disclaimer of “don’t come here if you aren’t willing to deal with unmoderated material” wouldn’t suffice. Topics like this one are next to impossible to discuss without a discussion of the politics behind it.</p>
<p>I really feel this is a cultural thing…as a Brit, albeit an expat, it is unfathomable to me how many Americans defend the right to bear arms. We did not grow up in this culture and so it makes sense we are against it…but I sort of understand how Americans want the right to bear arms…simply because they want the right to do what they want…is this racist? In the Uk as I remember it, we kowtow to what society wants rather than the individual…there is really no right or wrong…unless you are living in the wrong country.</p>
<p>There are too many guns to consider outlawing them. All you could do is take them away from the honest people and that would have catastrophic results. There are some things you just can’t predict or protect yourself from, but I bet a lot of folks in that theater will be working on their concealed weapon permits soon.</p>
<p>I will bring up the Norway massacre, not to point out that these things happen in other countries, and not to point out that the 91 casualties there exceed the total of the last how many (5 or 6) annual such events here in the United States. I mention it because of the creepy similarity in the plots; The diabolical perpetrator planned an elaborate and deadly diversion to bring police and other first responders away from his target. In Norway, the plan worked and the killer had hours to hunt down and kill his victims. In Colorado the bombs were not triggered and police arrived at the movie theatre in minutes (90 seconds?).</p>
<p>Haven’t read this entire thread, but I wonder how many of these mass shootings or bombings have been carried out by females? How about not selling weapons to males?</p>
Did you read how one of the young women killed in this shooting was present at the shooting at a mall in Toronto last month but managed to escape that? Apparently they do have shootings in other countries - even ones with relatively small populations like Canada. What a tragic coincidence for this young woman.</p>
<p>
It makes sense to me that the business has the right to do this and if the patrons don’t like it they have the right to not patronize the place. Many private businesses have a policy banning guns on their property. The policy though is obviously ineffective against anyone planning a crime. Whether a patron with a gun could have mitigated this shooting is unknown. Maybe they could have or maybe not - especially given that he was wearing body armor. I also haven’t read yet why he stopped - whether he was out of rounds or simply because he felt he’d done enough damage. If he got into a firefight with a patron maybe it would have resulted in even more people getting killed. I don’t think we’ll ever know whether it would have helped or hurt in this particular situation. Generally speaking, I think in some of the events it would definitely help for a person with a weapon to intervene (lots of proof of this when a cop intervenes including off-duty and plainclothes ones who just happen to be present) and other times not.</p>
<p>I actually feel bad for the movie company and all of the work that went into making the movie. I’ve heard the movie is absolutely fantastic, but its sales are going to be significantly diminished due to fear of seeing the movie after the shooting. I know, just from speaking with individuals today, that some people actually are not going to see the movie because they fear “copycat” shootings.</p>
<p>Well, the dirtbag used two Glock 17s, a 12 gauge, and assault rifle (AR-15) The AR-15 would have been covered by the act, but the Glocks and 12 gauge wouldn’t have been. </p>
<p>We’ll LET murder happen again. We won’t do a damn thing to keep the next batch of young people from getting slaughtered. We’ll keep the killing machine well oiled and well within the reach of anyone (the more the merrier) because we’re too cowardly, too brainwashed, too greedy to stand up and say, enough.</p>
<p>America, land of the free and the brave. Please. It’s neither.</p>
<p>^^ You’re too harsh on the collective ‘we’. The reality is that you don’t have a solution for this and neither do I or the collective ‘we’. We don’t really know why these people commit these mass murders and we don’t know how to stop it. I understand the desire to place blame for something like this but the blame falls squarely on the murderer himself and if we can understand the actual motivation perhaps we can work to mitigate similar events in the future. We need to focus on the root cause of this which lies in the murderer’s psyche.</p>
<p>I agree that it will unfortunately happen again.</p>
<p>And focusing on the root cause in the murderer’s PSYCHE? Are you flipping kidding me? We can’t get ourselves together enough to bring down the infant mortality rate in this country. You really think we’ll have the will to invest in criminals’ PSYCHE? What planet do you live on? From where I sit, I see people want to execute this dude publicly and then get off by rubbing against their semi automatic weapons while wrapping themselves in a Constitution they’ve never read or understood.</p>
<p>But thank you for agreeing it will happen again. I wish I could be as sanguine about it as you are.</p>