<p>You’re right. Will will most likely be having this conversation again in the near future. This year alone there have been 7 mass shootings. Chardon OH (February), Pittsburgh Pa (March), Oakland CA (April), Tulsa OK (April), Seattle WA (May), Tuscaloosa AL (July), and now Aurora CO. Where the hell next?</p>
<p>
I don’t know how old you are, but I find it astounding that you have never seen a gun. Personally I hate guns, but I’ve seen more than a few.</p>
<p>katliamom:</p>
<p>In reality I’m not convinced there’s much we can do effectively about this kind of thing. I understand that some people resort to the gun control/ban argument and I think those people aren’t looking at it realistically or rationally but I understand the emotions. </p>
<p>I think if we’re to have any chance of stopping ‘some’ of these events it’ll need to be through understanding why they happen in the first place and having some means of intervening. Maybe this has already happened in the cases where psychiatric issues have been detected in some people and help provided through medications or counseling. We might never know what’s been prevented. The problem is the individual and their mental state so no, I’m not kidding you.</p>
<p>You have no idea how sanguine or affected I might be from this event from what I write as posts on CC like this. </p>
<p>I haven’t said a thing about the constitution but again, you’re blaming the guns when the issue is really the individual. It’s a simplistic, unrealistic, and ineffective approach to a resolution for events like this. </p>
<p>In reality you can’t possibly eliminate of all the guns even if they were all banned. We already ban plenty of things that even middle schoolers seem to be able to acquire with few problems. Mass murders are committed with implements other than guns so they’d continue even if you could magically make all guns disappear which of course can’t happen. </p>
<p>I realize you view it differently but I don’t know which specific actions you’d propose that you think would be realistic and effective.</p>
<p>
Really? When I went to the UK last I saw guns on several occasions in the hands of the police. If you go to an airport in the UK you’ll likely see some guns in the hands of the security police there. If you go to some of the palaces you’ll see guns in the hands of the guards. I don’t see how you could have never seen a gun in the UK.</p>
<p>While there are vigorous disagreements surrounding gun control in general, it seems that it ought to be possible for us to find some common ground. I think most people would agree that firearms should be kept out of the hands of convicted felons, convicted domestic abusers, terrorists, and those who are dangerously mentally ill.</p>
<p>These are the goals laid out in an online petition, which I just signed, supported by The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.</p>
<p>[Brady</a> Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence: Survey - I Demand Congress Stop Arming Dangerous People](<a href=“http://www.bradynetwork.org/site/Survey?ACTION_REQUIRED=URI_ACTION_USER_REQUESTS&SURVEY_ID=6240]Brady”>http://www.bradynetwork.org/site/Survey?ACTION_REQUIRED=URI_ACTION_USER_REQUESTS&SURVEY_ID=6240)</p>
<p>This group (I’m not affiliated) seems to be facilitating a long-overdue conversation between the public and our elected representatives on this issue, and to that end, perhaps you’ll take a look at the petition and encourage your friends to do so as well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Besides, once another person starts shooting, any additional people with guns would likely have no idea who to shoot.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Potential terrorist targets (basically Heathrow and a handful of other touristy places) have armed security (and they’re much more visible than anything I’ve seen in the US). Otherwise police generally aren’t armed.</p>
<p>
I agree. I think it’s difficult to achieve but I agree that we should have laws in place to attempt to keep them out of the hands of people like you mention. Convicted felons seem to have few issues getting guns even when it’s illegal for them to do so - much like drug addicts seem to have few issues in getting illegal drugs. We need the laws in place but there’ll always be people getting them despite the laws.</p>
<p>One issue is that several of these mass killings seem to be done by people with no prior records of being in any of the above categories - the proverbial ‘quiet nice person next door’.</p>
<p>GladGradDad, guns and police are a relatively new phenomenon in England. Shocking, I know. </p>
<p>As for the US see, I just don’t believe “there’s not much we can do effectively” blah blah blah. And I’ll be brutally honest now: that kind of thinking shows a lack of political and moral courage. I think it’s lazy. And I also think it’s propaganda spread by those whose interests lie squarely in the widest possible access to guns. Their greatest fear is that someday we’ll come to our senses. And so far we haven’t.</p>
<p>Apparently, Holmes bought 4 guns, legally, and 6000 rounds of ammunition in a very short period of time. At the very least, there could be restrictions on how many guns you can buy in what period of time. Or some way that attempting to buy 4 guns and buckets of ammo would generate a little interest at the local precinct house…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I really hate being called a ■■■■■, especially when I’m not ■■■■■■■■. If you can’t be bothered to reply to a legitimate post with something resembling reasoned argument, don’t reply at all. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course it is illegal to murder someone, but that law on its own does not protect people. Until America wakes up and accepts the only way to protect people from gun crime is banning guns, you won’t be safe.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why should it astound you? I suspect that the only people in the UK who have ever seen a gun are posh people who go hunting (and you need a license for that), or if you’ve seen an armed police officer (and they’re very rare).</p>
<p>The simple fact is, guns are never going to be banned. There’s far too many in circulation for that to happen. I mean, what is the government going to do to the ones I own? Take them away? I’m not about to hand over things as expensive as firearms over to anyone for free, and certainly not to a body as incompetent as the US Government. Will they buy them from me? Then, who’s going to pay that enormous bill? Are they just going to halt further sales? Great, now there’s only a few millions of guns left to make the rounds.</p>
<p>My 2 cents: Firearm sales need some tighter regulation, no doubt, but taking everyone’s crayons because one kid tried to eat the red one has never been a fair or intelligent decision, even in kindergarten. How about, instead, we figure out which kids think the crayons are candy before we even pass them out, and either set them straight or, failing that, just refuse them a crayon.</p>
<p>I am a second amendment kind of guy myself and former Marine, but the amount of mass shootings in the US for the past few years (as well as other violent gun crimes) makes me think we need some gun regulations. I am not saying we should cut out the second amendment, but lets at least make it a little harder for some guy to buy up as much dangerous weaponry as he can before he goes on a killing spree. I would list my ideas, but for now I dont think its appropriate to do so and I dont want to seem like I am pushing an agenda on the back of a tragedy. God bless.</p>
<p>Does a home owner really need a AK type of gun? No >.> In this case, I would support the banning of higher powered altilery (50 calaber is the limit i believe, i could be wrong).</p>
<p>However, I would not blame the tool, I blame the person. His parents weren’t surpised, yet they chose not to tell anyone about his behavior? Granted, he was legal, but still.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Personally I believe that if possessing a gun were made a criminal offence most people would relinquish their firearms. Compensating people for this might not be such a bad idea, it would cost less in the long run, that’s for sure.</p>
<p>I didn’t mean to hijack this thread, but there have been so many of these incidents recently my patience is wearing a little thin. It’s terribly sad of course, but it can’t be that sad because no matter how many people die nothing ever changes. Is the second amendment really more important that peoples lives?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We can start by creating strong financial incentives and penalties to ensure firearms are bought, sold, used, and stored responsibly. Register guns, insure them, and require proof of insurance as a condition of every firearm sale (just as we do with motor vehicles). Require proof of insurance to buy ammo or practice at a firing range. Make insurers responsible for the funeral costs, hospital costs, lost income, pain & suffering of every victim (regardless of who fired the weapon). Then let their actuaries figure out how to price policies accordingly.</p>
<p>We now have a national drug use list, so an MD or a pharmacy can look up what prescriptions a person takes, and who prescribed it. I do not comprehend why the same cannot be done with guns. A flurry of activity by a person would be noted and regulated.</p>
<p>I am not so naive to think both kinds of people would seek illicit drugs/guns, but the price goes way up and isn’t so easy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Since this young man has no prior criminal records, there is no solution at the “individual” end. If he had no access to high-powered weapons, fewer people would’ve been killed/hurt. So, there is a simple solution at the “gun” end - no high-powered weapons like AR-15.</p>
<p>Concealed weapons law, on campus or in bar, is useless in the face of a suicide bomber/killer.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I’d agree.</p>
<p>Difficult economic circumstances can take a huge toll on people. Most can handle the tough times but some people that are more fragile may be pushed over the edge. Some commit suicide (or try) and some may try to take it out on others. What if this guy graduated and found a good job back in 2010? The workplace can be a very supportive place where you find people that are interested in the things that you are interested in.</p>
<p>stepping away from the gun rights discussion for a moment.</p>
<p>I’m not sure what the carry weapons law is in Colorado so I may be off base here.</p>
<p>Do you think the shooter choose the movie theatre because it was a gun free designated zone? He must have known this was one area with many stationary targets he could walk into and start shooting and would not immediately be met with opposing gunfire.</p>
<p>He was however dressed to survive.</p>
<p>Second thought. A poster upthread shared a quote that he had his music set to blare from 12:00 a.m in his booby trapped apartment with the door supposedly unlocked. It had never occurred to me that he was hoping someone would go in and create an explosion to divert police away from the theatre.</p>
<p>So if he was willing to blow up his apartment he apparently was not planning on going back there. Did he expect to die? Was he headed somewhere else? Was he going to surrender ffrom the start?</p>
<p>Did the carnage he created shock him into the reality of what had done so much so that he told the police his apartment was booby trapped before they went there in order to not cause any more harm???</p>
<p>lots of questions…no real answers</p>
<p>BCEagle: In addition to the gloom and doom economy; the wild fires and the oppressive heat this summer may have added additional mental stress.</p>