Mass Shooting in Colorado
12 dead and 60 wounded according to the latest counts I've seen.
Apparently he rigged his apartment to be destroyed before heading to the screening of The Dark Night Rises. When police arrived he surrendered quickly.
Weirder still: the New York City Police Commissioner has said that the man was dressed in the uniform of The Joker, the enemy of Batman, with dyed red hair and heavy body armor. I don't even know where to being with that attempt at reporting.
This is really effed up. My sympathies for the victems, sadly, this type of think now hapens far too commonly. People are already trying to politicize it, blame the NRA, blah, blah. This type of thing hasppened in Norway, a country with strict gun control laws. That it happens so frequently here says a lot about our society.
Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
blame the NRA, blah, blah.
guy had an AR-15, 40 cal glock, shotgun and a second pistol. Additionally, tear gas (which can be purchased at military surplus or gun shows) an was covered in ballistic armor (helmet, neck protector, vest, leggings).
how ****ing ridiculous do things have to get before it is ok to blame the NRA? He was better equipped than most soldiers.
There's more to it than just the weapons though. There are countries in Europe where you can own fully-automatic weapons without any of the dealer licenses and hullaballo required here yet these mass shootings are a lot less common elsewhere. With the exception of the psycho in Norway last year the majority of mass murders have been committed by terrorist groups overseas.
I think a big part of it is that killers here know that their message will be televised. Part of the VA Tech killer's farewell video was shown multiple times on every major network. We found out everything and then some about the Columbine killers, the shooters in MS and Padukah, KY. Every single workplace shooting from the Postal Rampages to multiple office attacks against former co-workers get played up in full-detail. The guy in AZ who shot the senator got his fifteen minutes as well. When you kill here the media gets your thoughts out to the rest of the country and your insanity gets seen in prime time no matter how bass ackwards it is.
If the killers got ignominy instead of fame and didn't get to share their twisted manifesto perhaps they wouldn't see this kind of thing as a way to make a point or get their thoughts heard. The guy let himself be taken peacefully by the cops, and the majority of these dbags kill themselves rather than facing the music against people who can actually defend themselves.
That said, some change to gun laws is necessary. Every interview and tidbit I've caught about this guy shows that the people around him knew he was unstable and even his mother said that she knew he was responsible as soon as he was named a suspect. If someone is that blatant of a headcase then it seems that maybe there should be some kind of competency testing in addition to background checks and that those checks should include inquiries into mental health treatment and hospitalization.
Still doesn't solve everything as the Columbine shooters got someone else to get them weapons and ammo, but it's a start.
Originally posted by Ascendancy
There's more to it than just the weapons though. There are countries in Europe where you can own fully-automatic weapons without any of the dealer licenses and hullaballo required here yet these mass shootings are a lot less common elsewhere. With the exception of the psycho in Norway last year the majority of mass murders have been committed by terrorist groups overseas.
many European nations require a very strict form of licencing to obtain an AR-15 (I'd imagine most...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15#Legal_status_of_civilian_ownership
Switzerland may be the exception, but that is because of mandatory military service.
I agree there are likely cultural reasons for a lot of the shootings in the states, but access to these weapons facilitates the scale.
Toronto, in Canada, has seen a number of shootings in recent months, including one at a barbecue where there were a couple killed and several wounded. The lack of availability of military grade weapons (not to mention body armor) prevents these from being on the scale of what we saw in Colorado.
EDIT: The VT shooter had diagnosed mental health issues...
Originally posted by Astner
I don't see what the problem is. Remove the right to bear arms. As it is now a dozen lives clings on the psyche of each gun owner.
There are still plenty of people who go their entire lives using guns responsibly and not committing massacres. This is the problem with most gun control debates, that they tend to be heavily polarized because of personal or cultural biases for or against guns.
That said, no civilian needs body armor, an assault rifle, or tear gas. It's ridiculous that these things can be purchased legally.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
That said, no civilian needs body armor, an assault rifle, or tear gas. It's ridiculous that these things can be purchased legally.
An AR-15 isn't exactly an assault rifle given that it's semiautomatic. Aside from the shape and lineage it really isn't any different from a hunting rifle.
The idea that people can go out and buy tear gas is absurd, though. The "need" argument isn't a good one but the "can't possibly use legitimately" argument makes sense to me.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
That's a kneejerk reaction.There are still plenty of people who go their entire lives using guns responsibly and not committing massacres. This is the problem with most gun control debates, that they tend to be heavily polarized because of personal or cultural biases for or against guns.
The only real problem I see is the risk for riots. As outlawing something is more controversial than to make it legal.
Originally posted by Astner
So we should let people keep their weaponry at the risk of other people's lives, because there are some people that are responsible?The only real problem I see is the risk for riots. As outlawing something is more controversial than to make it legal.
I'm asserting that many people who own guns will never use them for illegal purposes, so to ban them categorically is a knee-jerk move that speaks to laziness and a lack of understanding of the issue.
A better move would be to institute smarter controls so that the wrong people can't get a gun but a sensible, principled, upstanding single mother who lives in a bad neighborhood and wants to be able to protect her children can.