American Gun Laws,i just don't get it (Aurora Cinema shootings)

England my lionheart said:

I would say ease of access,i couldn't go into a Gun shop in the UK and say hi,i would like to buy two Glock handguns,an AR-15 and a twelve gauge shotgun and oh i guess i'll need a couple of thousand rounds of ammunition to go.

Click to expand...

Neither did he...

Now i'm suited and booted and after a long wait the wife is actually ready to go out with me to Dinner,bye.

England my lionheart said:

Does that really matter to the 71 people.

Click to expand...

I bet it does.
Cause if he had had an assault rifle he would have done more damage in a shorter period of time.

Mestemia said:

I bet it does.
Cause if he had had an assault rifle he would have done more damage in a shorter period of time.

Click to expand...

Typically, the term "assault rifle" is a weaponized word which the media use to enhance the hysteria.
Coverage of the horrible carnage doesn't benefit from such dishonesty.
My guess is that the confusion serves to whip up sentiment for more restrictions on ordinary gun ownership.

He had some weapons which he bought legally and some which perhaps he didn't. Many people died and more were injured. Arguing about exactly what the weapons were seems to be missing the point somewhat.
The fact that he had those weapons (whatever they were) enabled him to carry out his massacre. Is it not logical to at least consider the degree which gun laws and their application may have contributed to this crime? Or is it better to stick our heads in the sand?

Revoltingest said:

Typically, the term "assault rifle" is a weaponized word which the media use to enhance the hysteria.
Coverage of the horrible carnage doesn't benefit from such dishonesty.
My guess is that the confusion serves to whip up sentiment for more restrictions on ordinary gun ownership.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is an appeal to emotion tactic much like calling a fetus a baby.

The thing is, I doubt that England my lionheart knows that an AR-15 is not an assualt rifle.
In fact, I am willing to bet that he does not know half as much as he thinks he knows about the gun laws in the US.

he seems to think that all one has to do is walk into a store, place their order, pay, and they walk out with the handgunds, AR-15, shotgun, and the ammo, and then later that night walk into a theater and shoot the place up.

This shooting was NOT a spur of the moment decision.
The shooter spent several MONTHS obtaining the firearms, ammunition, and clothing he used in the assault.
these facts seem to be lost on those who want to make spur of the moment claims concerning the incident.

Mestemia said:

Yes, it is an appeal to emotion tactic much like calling a fetus a baby.
The thing is, I doubt that England my lionheart knows that an AR-15 is not an assualt rifle.
In fact, I am willing to bet that he does not know half as much as he thinks he knows about the gun laws in the US.
he seems to think that all one has to do is walk into a store, place their order, pay, and they walk out with the handgunds, AR-15, shotgun, and the ammo, and then later that night walk into a theater and shoot the place up.
This shooting was NOT a spur of the moment decision.
The shooter spent several MONTHS obtaining the firearms, ammunition, and clothing he used in the assault.
these facts seem to be lost on those who want to make spur of the moment claims concerning the incident.

Click to expand...

I hate to say it, but I think it suggests that we take a more proactive approach
towards at-risk fellow citizens who might go postal. I know it sounds like snitching,
but whaddaya think?

Cassiopia said:

He had some weapons which he bought legally and some which perhaps he didn't. Many people died and more were injured. Arguing about exactly what the weapons were seems to be missing the point somewhat.
The fact that he had those weapons (whatever they were) enabled him to carry out his massacre. Is it not logical to at least consider the degree which gun laws and their application may have contributed to this crime? Or is it better to stick our heads in the sand?

Click to expand...

IMO it is better to look at all the facts.

Fact is that he spent MONTHS obtaining the firearms, ammunition, and clothing to go through with his plan.

Now, realistically, since this was not a spur of the moment assault, do you really think that stricter gun laws would have prevented it?

Revoltingest said:

I hate to say it, but I think it suggests that we take a more proactive approach
towards at-risk fellow citizens who might go postal. I know it sounds like snitching,
but whaddaya think?

Click to expand...

What I find rather difficult to believe is that there was not one single person who even suspected that he was going to do something drastic.

Mestemia said:

What I find rather difficult to believe is that there was not one single person who even suspected that he was going to do something drastic.

Click to expand...

Especially when he legally bought all that ammunition.

[

quote=Revoltingest;3009633]Hey! I'm a libreral (classical/Jeffersonian) apologist!
But one needn't be a collector to get such a license.

Click to expand...

[/quote]

My deepest apologies. Of course I meant other liberal apologists.

Cassiopia said:

He had some weapons which he bought legally and some which perhaps he didn't. Many people died and more were injured. Arguing about exactly what the weapons were seems to be missing the point somewhat.
The fact that he had those weapons (whatever they were) enabled him to carry out his massacre. Is it not logical to at least consider the degree which gun laws and their application may have contributed to this crime? Or is it better to stick our heads in the sand?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Suppose he simply drove his car into the lobby as the movies let out. Then what do we ban?

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." -Benjamin Franklin

BSM1 said:

Suppose he simply drove his car into the lobby as the movies let out. Then what do we ban?

Click to expand...

Read my posts carefully and don't jump to conclusions. I have not suggested banning anything.

Taking advantage of this tragedy to say the UK is so much better than the US is a bit tacky don't you think? Using the tide of emotion this event has caused to preach your politics is pretty low in my opinion.

Ok fine guys i forgot about the tear gas...

Father Heathen said:

There are a lot of stabbings in the U.K., so why hasn't their government banned knives and replaced them with plastic sporks?

Click to expand...

This is true, people seem to forget that you don't need a gun to have violent crime. Though less people die overall typically with a knife instead of a gun.

Naturally, this is a tragedy and a time of mourning.

I'm (unfortunately) fairly ignorant of the ins and outs of this story other than what happened: I don't know if he had any psychological problems, if he bought them on the way or if he had them bought for a long time, and so on.


Are there methods in place to protect people from crimes? For example, can a gun store owner refuse to sell guns to a potential customer if they have suspicions about whether or not the guns are going to be used in a crime?

If I recall correctly, gun purchasers have to be screened in some way, like having a psych test, am I right?


My own uninformed, ignorant opinion as an outsider who knows nothing about American gun laws is that gun ownership should be quite stringent to avoid these things, although I imagine it is anyway so this is probably a redundant statement in itself. However, as a Briton I would not say that the British model is a good one and think it's ridiculous: we can't have tasers, knuckledusters, and a long list of anything that can be considered as a weapon, even if the weapon is in self-defence. I honestly don't think I'd be surprised if they banned mace.

However, despite all these stringent anti-gun laws, I know for a fact that I could actually get access to a gun, probably in less than an hour, if I called around a bit, and it's not even that expensive to get one. An acquaintance of mine said he knows a guy who knows a guy who could get one for about £85 (about $130 US). This was a few years ago, mind you, but I doubt things have changed that much.

All the British model does is stop the people who're almost not going to use a gun from having a gun to defend themselves when someone breaks into their house with a gun.

So... I dunno. :cover:

Cassiopia said:

Read my posts carefully and don't jump to conclusions. I have not suggested banning anything.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

My bad.

Cassiopia said:

Especially when he legally bought all that ammunition.

Click to expand...

Interesting how you seem to be wanting even more laws when the ones that are in place did not stop him....

What law do YOU think would have prevented this incident had it been in place before hand?