Colorado Movie Theater Shooting

[Kliban Nimbledigits]

Heard a good one today.

"Saying guns kill people is like saying spoons make people fat."

[Turaylon Soulshadow]

http://www.denverpost.com/theatershooti ... s-shooting

Let's all take a minute away from talking about ways to fix a problem that are never going to happen due to corrupt law officials that are in on the take and are the ones supplying the illegal guns, merchants doing shady shit, and whatever else, and just think for a bit about how much of a class act Christian Bale is. Showed up as HIMSELF, BY HIMSELF with no interaction from Warner Bros whatsoever, and insisted that the media not be notified.

[Ddrak]

I don't think it makes a big difference with this guy and these types of situations, no. I think people like this will always find a way. Maybe it's that the coverage just makes one feel a bit hopeless, and the more we learn about this guy, the more I keep asking myself "Why?" The only thing that I could possibly see is that it might give the crazy person a few more opportunities to get caught, but this guy seemed pretty intent on staying within his legal rights. I don't know. Maybe my opinion will change a bit once this has died down a bit.

I think people like that will always TRY to find a way, but the more blocks you put in their way (making automatic/semi-auto guns less available, making all guns less available, making anything more dangerous than a pillow illegal, requiring GPS tracking of all citizens, welding people in their rooms, whatever line you want) will reduce the chance that the nutjob successfully pulls off their master plan.

Remember - it's not hopeless. Shit happens. World is dangerous. Higher probability of being killed by a drunk driver than a crazed gunman though so the trick is to remember all the things MORE probable that will kill you and feel just a little outraged that the media, politicians and most people focus on one-in-a-billion chances instead of the one-in-two chances. Imagine the same outrage over cancer every day? Who gives a flying fuck about guns with that shit in our face! Anyway, chances really are awesome that you'll live perfectly happy through tomorrow and even better that your daughter will.

Criminals won't obey the law anyway.......They already broke the law.....Criminals.....past tence.

"Criminal" = someone who broke a law (past tense). "Won't" = future tense. No connection. It's a provably illogical statement that just sounds good.

Just because someone legally buys a gun to kill their spouse doesn't mean they are prepared to illegally buy a gun (and risk being caught, ripped off, or catching germs from seedy underworld people) to kill their spouse. In fact, there's very strong evidence that breaking the law in one area isn't well correlated with breaking totally different laws, especially when the first one is an emotional crime.

"Saying guns kill people is like saying spoons make people fat."

Again, provably false. Guns kill people directly through firearm accidents and are a tool that kills people in other cases. A much more accurate statement would be "guns kill people in the same way junk food makes people fat".

See - the problem is people are trying to justify something that they really shouldn't be. The correct attitude is to just admit that guns *do* kill people just like wrenches tighten bolts and televisions show you pictures. There's no problem with wanting guns, just as there's no problem with wanting junk food. The whole thing is a case of what risks you're prepared to deal with and what risks you aren't.

Have your guns. I don't care. Just don't pretend that there's no difference between gun control and no gun control when it comes to criminal behavior.

Dd

[Alluveal]

I will say this, I thought the idea of Christian Bale (or other actors/crew/producers) going to Aurora was a shitty idea, but I think I've changed my mind on that. Bale going to Aurora on his own volition and the way he did it. It seemed pretty thoughtful to me.

[Freecare Spiritwise]

Trying to take away all tools that harm people is a waste of time, because almost any tool can be used for harm. And even if you could do it, humans would just invent new, more efficient tools of harm. So in a sense, I believe gun control ultimately drives innovation into more efficient weapons. The only "real" weapon to me is the human mind. Without the intent to harm, a gun is an inert piece of metal. So, the real problem is intent to harm, not the means by which people are harmed. Gun control just addresses the symptom, not the disease.

So, how would you take away everyone's possible intent to harm one another? Hello, Orwell.

I was telling my wife the other day my theory that if you took everyone and put them in a padded room so they couldn't harm each other, they would develop psychic powers to harm each other by telepathy at a distance. Where there is intent to harm, there will be harm, period. So, until we evolve as a society past the desire to harm, we're going to continue to see lots of it. Yay.

[Taxious]

Any Taxious sightings since this all went down?

Here I am! I'm in downtown Denver, a fair bit away from Aurora.

My main question is: why is the name of the movie headlined in every news story about the shooting? It's starting to feel like a marketing ploy. Even the memorials have aspects that let everyone know what movie it happened at. Do you think this would be going on if the shooting happened at a Magic Mike screening?

[Freecare Spiritwise]

I wonder what the shooting did to the gross sales of the movie. Marketing of the future?

[Massterloo]

Freecare, I don't know about people developing psychic powers to harm each other by telepathy at a distance. But in secure places like prison a whole shitload of toothbrushes are sharpened to be used as shanks. Now if we can only make laws against giving prisoners toothbrushes....

[Freecare Spiritwise]

I remember my son when he was little, playing cowboys & indians, cops & robbers, and other games like that. All the little boys had these toy guns and the wife flipped her noodle one day. "NO MORE GUN TOYS". I told her she was wrong, and it took a long time for her to come around.

When she took the kids' squirt guns, cap guns, etc., they fashioned toy guns out of sticks from the yard, cardboard, and other household items. So, she took those away too. When she took pretty much everything away from the boys, they used their fingers as guns and said "bang bang" to each other. In their minds, they were guns. And I think that kind of play is healthy as long as they know the difference. I would say "You know that real guns are bad and that hurting people is bad, right" and he would say "Dad, I'm not a moron".

I guess my point in all this is that you can't completely go against human nature. Even animal's "play" is violent. My Chihuahuas bring me the little toys and present them to me just like a hunting dog would bring me an animal it killed. Trying to deny that nature with no outlet just makes it build up. It can't be just denied flat out, and shouting "NO MORE GUNS" isn't going to make us safer.

Now, my son is joining the Marines. I'm not sure how much the Marines are making the world a safer place (since they are run by career politicians) but we are all for service to something greater to yourself. He still has an interest in guns, but he also has the tools to know right from wrong. We tried to go "with the grain" when we raised him.

[Ddrak]

Trying to take away all tools that harm people is a waste of time, because almost any tool can be used for harm. And even if you could do it, humans would just invent new, more efficient tools of harm. So in a sense, I believe gun control ultimately drives innovation into more efficient weapons.

Sorry Free, but this is just wrong.

Gun control is never about "taking away all tools that harm people". It's about reducing the risk of a person with the intent to kill having access to the most efficient weapons to achieve that. Phrasing gun control as an absolute measure rather than a risk mitigation exercise is simply a strawman.

Next, removing the most efficient weapons does not drive development of more efficient weapons. If that were true, you'd see all the best weapons development in nations that have the strongest gun control and from civilian sectors that don't have access to those guns. Instead we see the best guns being developed by people with access to other guns (as you'd actually expect), while people without access to guns tend to build or use cruder and less efficient weapons (usually knives or big sticks).

Note Massterloo's statement that prisons sharpen toothbrushes because they have no access to guns. I would struggle to find anyone who would consider a shank more efficient than a gun, or anyone that would suggest removing guns from prisons doesn't reduce the danger of prisoners killing one another, or killing the guards. Similarly, just because a determined prisoner may eventually gain access to a firearm doesn't mean that the overall gun control hasn't made the entire population safer. Gun control provably works in the closed prison environment and you can fairly plainly see through the logical fallacies organisations like the NRA put forward if you initially consider them in a closed environment to understand the true effect.

Kids play "guns" because they are exposed to them from an early age as a means of warfare. Obviously before guns were invented, kids would play knights with swords and before that you can bet they played "bash them with a stick". When something even more efficient comes along and is adopted into general use, kids will play with that. It's an excellent study in gun control though: imagine a world where children had ready access to firearms. If gun control for children is acceptable, where does it become unacceptable? There's no solid test for responsibility in owning a firearm so you have to choose whether the risk of irresponsible people having efficient means to do murder is balanced by the ability for responsible people to have access to efficient means to do murder (and by definition, not exercising that ability). That's a choice for society to make, and different nations or states choose differently.

Dd

[Ddrak]

I have to add that Jason Alexander's comments on assault rifles are right on the mark:

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/if2nht

(and remember they are specific to assault rifles before you take too much offense)

Dd

[Tarfang_Trubasher]

Not all of them are on the mark, but that was an intelligent approach nonetheless.

These weapons are military weapons. They belong in accountable hands, controlled hands and trained hands. They should not be in the hands of private citizens to be used against police, neighborhood intruders or people who don't agree with you. These are the weapons that maniacs acquire to wreak murder and mayhem on innocents. They are not the same as handguns to help homeowners protect themselves from intruders. They are not the same as hunting rifles or sporting rifles. These weapons are designed for harm and death on big scales.

As an AR-15 owner, I'm almost insulted by that. Because of this one whacko, I am now unable to be trusted with my firearm? My AR is NOT a military weapon. It is not fully-automatic or capable of three-round burst fire. I am NOT a "maniac poised to wreak murder and mayhem on innocents" just because I own an AR-15. The AR platform is popular among shooters for being a single-gun option that can be used for both sport and for hunting. To an extreme, I would wonder how Mr. Alexander feels about ex-military and law enforcement personnel ownership of assault rifles. Are they not trained and controlled? As civilians, are they now joining the rest of us "maniacs" in AR ownership?

By the way, did anyone else read how the AR-15 actually failed to function? Holmes also used a shotgun and handgun. Why is it the AR-15 gets all the bad press?

This is part of a bigger problem America has developed. There is always interest in creating legislation that affects 98% of the population for the sake of the other 2% that can't keep itself together.

-TF

[Massterloo]

I say we keep the guns, and eliminate the crazy people.

[Freecare Spiritwise]

The few people I know who collect those types of guns are solid - one is a cop. In fact, years ago one of these friends had talked me into buying a Russian SKS before the "ban" went into effect in 1994 (?). I ended up selling it mainly because I had young kids, but also because it's a lousy home defense weapon. You miss the intruder and the rounds keep going through several of your neighbor's houses. I got rid of the other guns too eventually. It just scared the crap out of me thinking my kids would one day get their hands on one of them, even though I was careful.

Even though I'm gunless now, I still empathize with my friends who are collectors. I can't speak for all collectors, but the people I know are pillars of the community. When the shit goes down, these are the guys you'll be running to, not from. I don't think one bad guy is enough reason to take the guns away from the good guys. And as I've said, I certainly don't think it will make the world any safer.

[Tarfang_Trubasher]

In the spirit of Freecare's post, I'll add I don't have my AR for home defense. I have better tools for that job (ie. handgun w/ proper ammo).

The use of an AR for home defense is possible, but extreme care must be used when dealing with over-penetration of both walls and humans. That is why a lot of gun sites share learned knowledge about ballistic travel/impact of various bullets. A great example is this article from: AR-15.com

I understand not everyone is going to look for this type of data. However, those that are willing to take home defense seriously WILL seek these answers. I also don't think anti-gun folks understand that "we" research and test these things they fear.

As for children in the house -- that adds an incredible amount of "pressure" to gun owners. I'm in the education camp. Showing kids the outcome of a bullet striking a target can both be fun and educational. My wife's cousin thought shooting a watermelon at 50 yards was a lot of fun. Then we discussed how a similar outcome would be had if a human had been struck. Teaching proper use, the four "golden rules of gun operation", and removing the forbidden fruit element is an effective (for me and many of my friends with children) method. Obviously, there are also gun safes and such as well.

-TF

[Freecare Spiritwise]

One of my friends has a gun safe that took a crane to get it off the truck, and 10 big guys with a bobcat to get it into his house.

For me, it was just more convenient to get rid of 'em. But I do respect gun owner parents who are all about teaching the kids safety from day one. It's just another dangerous tool. These days I worry about my son with the chainsaw, chop saw, and other whirling gizmos that you could also make a stupid, life-changing mistake with. Safety is safety.

[Freecare Spiritwise]

Now that's what I'm talkin' about

One Year After The Breivik Massacre, Norway Continues To Fight Terrorism With Democracy, Openness And Love

Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg pledged to do everything to ensure the country's core values were not undermined. "The Norwegian response to violence is more democracy, more openness and greater political participation," he said.

[Tarfang_Trubasher]

Wow...I wonder if that was popular in Norway...

Let the research begin!

Thanks for the share.

-TF

[Alluveal]

Not sure if you guys saw this, but apparently, Holmes sent a notebook detailing the attack to his psychiatrist at the college

LINK HERE

Apparently, it may have been sitting in the mailroom since July 12th.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Personally I like Switzerland's stance on guns.