The Denver killer is clearly a very very sick young Man.

[Bold Seagull]

You are trying to make out that when guns are illegal there is less murder. When guns are legal there is more murder. Correlation does not mean causation, and as demonstrated in this country by the ban on handguns in 1997, infact banning guns does NOT reduce gun related crime. Despite the correlation, there is not causation.

Is that easier for you?

There are other reasons for why gun crime may not have been reduced. In 1997 gun crime may have escalated and the banning of guns actually kept it from rising further, so your argument using this statistic is empty. Just because gun related crime at that time didn't actually go down, that isn't the same as saying banning guns didn't reduced gun related crime. Statistics are based on past evidence, hypothetically if the ban had not been enforced we don't know what the gun related crime figures would have been.

 

[Acker79]

You might imagine that. But your dark nightmare vision is actually not particularly realistic. You just have a healthy distrust of guns, and hey they are dangerous. But your fear is irrational and is a result of conditioning and not actual logic. In my opinion.

It actually is realistic.

Cinemas are dark places once the film has started. The film had started, ergo, it was a dark place.
Smoke bombs were released into the room, so that even incidental light from the screen and emergency lighting is rendered useless.
People aren't going to sit still when someone sets of a smoke bomb and starts shooting randomly. It's a natural reaction to move, even if you can't see where you're going.

The idea that there would be panic in a dark room making it impossible for one particular person to get a clear shot at the shoot is not a dark nightmare imagination of things, it is a reality of this specific situation. You have several people all trying to shoot the killer in this situation it becomes even worse. (Unless they are very well trained, and if they are well trained they won't take the shot, thus rendering them having guns pointless)

There are also reports he was wearing armour, so the shooting him would be pointless.


Other points: Guns are designed to kill. Semi automatic guns are designed to kill faster. Cars are not designed to kill. If you use a gun properly, you kill someone. If you use a car properly, you get from point a to point b. That is why your argument about car deaths meaning banning cars falls down.
The right to bear arms in the constitution is framed in the point of forming a well regulated militia, not protecting themselves.

No, the urge and will to kill won't disappear if you got rid of guns, but the practicalities would lead to a massive reduction in murders. You wouldn't replace 9000 gun deaths with 3000 knife death, 3000 strangulations, and 3000 poisonings just because guns weren't available. How many of those gun deaths are people in the heat of the moment, who, if they had to search for a knife, or feel someone's life ebbing away while wrapping their hands around someone's throat, would realise they are going to far and stop. Hell, there was a case cited on here a while back of a man who caught someone raping his child - he killed the guy and immediately regretted it trying to save the guy's life. It happens. Guns make it too easy to realise that urge to kill, remove guns and you will significantly reduce the number of deaths.

Sure, make guns illegal and some criminals will still have them, but not all of them. Guns are illegal in britain, yet criminals have them, but not all criminals. And even if you only get guns off of 30% of criminals, that would have a significant effect.



For what it's worth, I don't think gun laws are the problem or answer. I think the bigger problem is the culture of "you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands" - it scares me that people are so desperate to have these tools that are designed to kill. You can protect yourself and your home without killing the threat. It's a cultural thing. As other have pointed out, guns are legal in many other countries without America's high gun death rate. It is an attitude thing, and that needs to be addressed before the laws.

 

[Mellotron]

It actually is realistic.

Cinemas are dark places once the film has started. The film had started, ergo, it was a dark place.
Smoke bombs were released into the room, so that even incidental light from the screen and emergency lighting is rendered useless.
People aren't going to sit still when someone sets of a smoke bomb and starts shooting randomly. It's a natural reaction to move, even if you can't see where you're going.

The idea that there would be panic in a dark room making it impossible for one particular person to get a clear shot at the shoot is not a dark nightmare imagination of things, it is a reality of this specific situation. You have several people all trying to shoot the killer in this situation it becomes even worse. (Unless they are very well trained, and if they are well trained they won't take the shot, thus rendering them having guns pointless)

There are also reports he was wearing armour, so the shooting him would be pointless.


Other points: Guns are designed to kill. Semi automatic guns are designed to kill faster. Cars are not designed to kill. If you use a gun properly, you kill someone. If you use a car properly, you get from point a to point b. That is why your argument about car deaths meaning banning cars falls down.
The right to bear arms in the constitution is framed in the point of forming a well regulated militia, not protecting themselves.

No, the urge and will to kill won't disappear if you got rid of guns, but the practicalities would lead to a massive reduction in murders. You wouldn't replace 9000 gun deaths with 3000 knife death, 3000 strangulations, and 3000 poisonings just because guns weren't available. How many of those gun deaths are people in the heat of the moment, who, if they had to search for a knife, or feel someone's life ebbing away while wrapping their hands around someone's throat, would realise they are going to far and stop. Hell, there was a case cited on here a while back of a man who caught someone raping his child - he killed the guy and immediately regretted it trying to save the guy's life. It happens. Guns make it too easy to realise that urge to kill, remove guns and you will significantly reduce the number of deaths.

Sure, make guns illegal and some criminals will still have them, but not all of them. Guns are illegal in britain, yet criminals have them, but not all criminals. And even if you only get guns off of 30% of criminals, that would have a significant effect.



For what it's worth, I don't think gun laws are the problem or answer. I think the bigger problem is the culture of "you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands" - it scares me that people are so desperate to have these tools that are designed to kill. You can protect yourself and your home without killing the threat. It's a cultural thing. As other have pointed out, guns are legal in many other countries without America's high gun death rate. It is an attitude thing, and that needs to be addressed before the laws.

A very good post.

 

[Bold Seagull]

To seek to prevent crimes in this kind of way is impossible. All you end up doing is destroying peoples Liberty.

If we lock up every British citizen in their home, there would never be another crime committed.

I have just solved all crime.

Pat me on the back.

I realise you must feel demonised or victimised or what have you at times, but have you ever considered joining a debating society or similar? You learn a lot from defending a position you don't actually agree with, it enables you to take a much more objective rigorous view point, and to present a convincing case. You just come across as a bit of a crack pot on here mainly because of the way you present things.

Just saying like.

 

[beorhthelm]

Do you know why there is a 2nd amendment?

I don't have to defend anything.

you dont seem to think you do, why is that.you presented the same argument in another thread, with the same link. when i refuted your argument with facts, you went of down an other diversionary route, building another strawman. here again the facts are presented, that outright refute your point, why do you not have anything to counter them?

seriously, why do you insist on regurgitating these foreign politics anyway, why are you so indoctrinated by the US right wing thinking? have you sought citizenship, are you loking forward to moving to Tennesse where the death rate from firearms is 100x that in the UK, but you get to carry a firearm to defend yourself? if not why... just why?

 

[dingodan]

No I'm not. I'm trying to demonstrate that there is a LOT more gun crime in a country where the right to bear arms is enshrined in law, where there are gun stores on street corners of many poor neighbourhoods because anyone can buy one, than in a nation where you have to go to great lengths to buy one.

Now is that easier for you? I'm tiring of your lack of intellect to be honest, but if you could just demonstrate why the stats below ought to be dismissed out of hand, perhaps we could move on?

USA 10.27 (unintentional death rate 0.23)
UK 0.46 (0.01)
Germany 1.57 (0.04)

To clarify, here is my premise: ANYONE can own a firearm in the US. Not surprisingly (to me), their murder rate is 25 times higher than ours. Given that FACT, do we really want our firearms laws relaxed?

You will say that you're not, but you are still arguing that firearms laws prevent firearms crimes. And that is false.

Gun laws are not uniform throughout the states, not anyone can get a weapon and not any weapon. The states have differing levels of respect for the 2nd amendment, with many having bans of automatic weapons, and checks carried out on purchasers.

If you look at the gun crime rates where people "open carry" they are far lower than in areas with strict gun regulations. Also look at the statistics for gun crime in this country pre and post gun laws.

You accuse me of a "lack of intellect" but everything I am saying is factually correct, and supported by reason and logic. You are coming at this, in my opinion, from an emotional perspective. You think guns are wrong and you seem to have some moral objection to them.

I abhor violence. Guns are not violent, only people are violent. I understand the instinct to "deal with" the guns, but if you don't change the conditions which give rise to violence in the first place then you have dealt only with the symptom and not with the cause.

And again, disarming a population, however good your intentions, leaves them vulnerable to criminals and in some parts of the world, a rogue government.

 

[Bold Seagull]

For what it's worth, I don't think gun laws are the problem or answer. I think the bigger problem is the culture of "you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands" - it scares me that people are so desperate to have these tools that are designed to kill. You can protect yourself and your home without killing the threat. It's a cultural thing. As other have pointed out, guns are legal in many other countries without America's high gun death rate. It is an attitude thing, and that needs to be addressed before the laws.

No one owns guns like the Americans. Based on gun ownership surveys in 2007, the US has 88.8 guns per 100 residents. The next country on that list is Serbia with 58.2. Iraq 34.2, Yemen 54.8, France/Germany/Canada around 30.

In America, probably as you say it's an obsession.

 

[dingodan]

I realise you must feel demonised or victimised or what have you at times, but have you ever considered joining a debating society or similar? You learn a lot from defending a position you don't actually agree with, it enables you to take a much more objective rigorous view point, and to present a convincing case. You just come across as a bit of a crack pot on here mainly because of the way you present things.

Just saying like.

What have I said that is crackpot like?

Thanks for taking the time to write this post, it's really something.

 

[dingodan]

when i refuted your argument with facts, you went of down an other diversionary route, building another strawman. here again the facts are presented, that outright refute your point, why do you not have anything to counter them?

I missed those refuting facts, what were they?

 

[beorhthelm]

Correlation does not mean causation, and as demonstrated in this country by the ban on handguns in 1997, infact banning guns does NOT reduce gun related crime. Despite the correlation, there is not causation.

you couldnt be more right on this point. the ban on handguns indeed did not cause the increase, despite the correlation. why would it? so why keep dragging it up? get back to the 100x (or 25x by others) factor of increase gun crime in gun ridden US verses virtual gun free europe.

 

[Bold Seagull]

What have I said that is crackpot like?

I would have thought the multiple replies to every post gives you some indication...

 

[Simster]

You will say that you're not, but you are still arguing that firearms laws prevent firearms crimes. And that is false.

Gun laws are not uniform throughout the states, not anyone can get a weapon and not any weapon. The states have differing levels of respect for the 2nd amendment, with many having bans of automatic weapons, and checks carried out on purchasers.

If you look at the gun crime rates where people "open carry" they are far lower than in areas with strict gun regulations. Also look at the statistics for gun crime in this country pre and post gun laws.

You accuse me of a "lack of intellect" but everything I am saying is factually correct, and supported by reason and logic. You are coming at this, in my opinion, from an emotional perspective. You think guns are wrong and you seem to have some moral objection to them.

I abhor violence. Guns are not violent, only people are violent. I understand the instinct to "deal with" the guns, but if you don't change the conditions which give rise to violence in the first place then you have dealt only with the symptom and not with the cause.

And again, disarming a population, however good your intentions, leaves them vulnerable to criminals and in some parts of the world, a rogue government.

The fact is that the murder rate is 25 times higher in the US than here, and you are literally unable to defend it. You still keep talking about how people kill people, not guns and that this makes it ok.

 

[dingodan]

you couldnt be more right on this point. the ban on handguns indeed did not cause the increase, despite the correlation. why would it? so why keep dragging it up?

I did not say the ban on handguns caused an increase in gun crime (although an increase of 40% was observed).

I challenged the suggestion that having a ban on handguns reduced gun crime (because it didn't, a 40% increase was observed).

True to form as always.

 

[dingodan]

I would have thought the multiple replies to every post gives you some indication...

No that means many disagree. Is that what it means when many disagree? Crackpot?

It's just cheap.

 

[dingodan]

The fact is that the murder rate is 25 times higher in the US than here, and you are literally unable to defend it. You still keep talking about how people kill people, not guns and that this makes it ok.

Ha, brilliant. I have to defend America's crime rate. No I don't. You have to defend your assertion that the crime rate is a result of guns being lawfully owned by citizens and the evidence does not support that assertion, but never mind.

I'm sure if you muddy the argument, and slate me for my views, that will go unnoticed. Even by you.

 

[Bold Seagull]

The fact is that the murder rate is 25 times higher in the US than here, and you are literally unable to defend it. You still keep talking about how people kill people, not guns and that this makes it ok.

 

[Simster]

No that means many disagree. Is that what it means when many disagree? Crackpot?

It's just cheap.

No, Dingle. It's because your arguments make no sense. Whenever you are comprehensively debunked, you just ignore what is said.

You've been asked to justify the key issue, that the murder rate is TWENTY FIVE times higher in the US than it is here, and you can't. Even when [MENTION=599]beorhthelm[/MENTION] agreed with you that correlation does not mean causation, you still wouldn't get back to this elephant in the room.

 

[Bold Seagull]

No that means many disagree. Is that what it means when many disagree? Crackpot?

It's just cheap.

You must be very thick skinned!

 

[Simster]

Ha, brilliant. I have to defend America's crime rate. No I don't. You have to defend your assertion that the crime rate is a result of guns being lawfully owned by citizens and the evidence does not support that assertion, but never mind.

I'm sure if you muddy the argument, and slate me for my views, that will go unnoticed. Even by you.

So despite the fact that guns are readily available in US, in a way they simply are not available in Europe, it hasn't crossed your mind that removing firearms might lower the death rate? As has been said before, you would remove any impulse killings at a stroke. Clearly. 9,000 gun murders would not be replaced by 3,000 lynchings, 3,000 knife murders and 3,000 toasters thrown in the bath.

Dingle Dim yesterday:

 

[dingodan]

No, Dingle. It's because your arguments make no sense. Whenever you are comprehensively debunked, you just ignore what is said.

You've been asked to justify the key issue, that the murder rate is TWENTY FIVE times higher in the US than it is here, and you can't. Even when [MENTION=599]beorhthelm[/MENTION] agreed with you that correlation does not mean causation, you still wouldn't get back to this elephant in the room.

Are you kidding, he twisted what I said so he could dismiss it. I said "gun laws do not REDUCE gun crime". So his response was "yes so gun laws do not INCREASE crime, so what?". Ignoring the fact that you are all defending gun laws on the basis that they reduce gun crime.

"whenever I am comprehensively debunked" What? I have been "comprehensively debunked"? What facts have I posted that you have found to be false? You are just talking BS. Show me something I have said which is factually inaccurate.

Yes I cannot justify America's high crime rate, but did I say America does not have a high crime rate? Did I say America has a good crime rate? I think what I said was that banning guns does not reduce gun crime.