Colorado shootings

[Havnegade]

(21-07-2012 11:17 PM)Cajak Wrote:  

(21-07-2012 11:13 PM)Senya Wrote:  A bit like the Bible and the Qur'an then?

Not exactly, but yes: such outdated documents cannot be used for judicial purposes. The spirituality, or the historical importance behind them cannot be denied and should be always considered, but I don't see people still using the Code of Hammurabi in Iraq (or where Babylonia originally was).

I agree partially. The Code of Hammurabi is nuts.

[Cajak]

(21-07-2012 11:20 PM)Havnegade Wrote:  I agree partially. The Code of Hammurabi is nuts.

Well, at the time it was considered the greatest legal code of all time. So the same applies for the other documents mentioned, I suppose.

[Puggy]

I'm no expert on the subject, but the statistics I've seen would indicate that gun control isn't an effective way of combating crime. This is a societal problem with deep roots in the very essence of our culture. The killer was 24 - relatively young. The psychological characteristics of a murderer are not difficult to identify from a younger age. Another issue that definitely plays a role in this is the entire American media culture... what's being reported on the news and whatnot. Like I said, I'm not an expert, but there's my 2 cents on the whole matter.

I agree that the death penalty won't solve anything. A penal system like that of Norway is proven to be vastly superior in rehabilitating criminals than the American system.

[Havnegade]

(22-07-2012 01:18 AM)Joseph Puglisi Wrote:  I'm no expert on the subject, but the statistics I've seen would indicate that gun control isn't an effective way of combating crime. This is a societal problem with deep roots in the very essence of our culture. The killer was 24 - relatively young. The psychological characteristics of a murderer are not difficult to identify from a younger age. Another issue that definitely plays a role in this is the entire American media culture... what's being reported on the news and whatnot. Like I said, I'm not an expert, but there's my 2 cents on the whole matter.

I agree that the death penalty won't solve anything. A penal system like that of Norway is proven to be vastly superior in rehabilitating criminals than the American system.

Could not of said it better.

---

(21-07-2012 11:58 PM)Cajak Wrote:  

(21-07-2012 11:20 PM)Havnegade Wrote:  I agree partially. The Code of Hammurabi is nuts.

Well, at the time it was considered the greatest legal code of all time. So the same applies for the other documents mentioned, I suppose.

I studied the code in my history class. I cannot fathom how it was considered great. But times change, I guess.

[Souran]

The equipment he was carrying and the weapons he was using was already illegal, meaning he acquired them as a criminal. Gun control is a set of laws regulating and prohibiting firearms. Now what is it that people do to become criminals? They break the law. Criminals don't give a flying crap about your petty gun control and if they want something, they'll get it. Ever heard of the black market?

A criminal will acquire a firearm regardless of the law, but gun laws will disarm innocents who aren't planning on shooting up venues. Civilians have a right to defend themselves, and firearms are a tool for defense. Gun control disarms the innocent and leaves them as free game for criminals who don't follow the law as they are criminals. It does not take down the stock of weapons and it doesn't stop the circulation of weapons. Even if all guns in the world would be to suddenly be incinerated, it is still possible to make more. That's what syndicate weapon manufacturers are for.

[Cajak]

(22-07-2012 01:18 AM)Joseph Puglisi Wrote:  I'm no expert on the subject, but the statistics I've seen would indicate that gun control isn't an effective way of combating crime. This is a societal problem with deep roots in the very essence of our culture.

I know the American people are really obsessed with guns, but by giving a higher regulation on weapons, you're already trying to prevent the issue from the beginning. So far, as Rossen pointed out a while ago (interesting stuff, I suggest everyone to read it), getting one is fairly easy, and while safety courses are encouraged, they're not required, which virtually gives everyone the possibility to have a weapon, including people who may be dangerous to the community.

(22-07-2012 08:26 AM)Souran Wrote:  The equipment he was carrying and the weapons he was using was already illegal, meaning he acquired them as a criminal. Gun control is a set of laws regulating and prohibiting firearms. Now what is it that people do to become criminals? They break the law. Criminals don't give a flying crap about your petty gun control and if they want something, they'll get it. Ever heard of the black market?

A criminal will acquire a firearm regardless of the law, but gun laws will disarm innocents who aren't planning on shooting up venues. Civilians have a right to defend themselves, and firearms are a tool for defense. Gun control disarms the innocent and leaves them as free game for criminals who don't follow the law as they are criminals. It does not take down the stock of weapons and it doesn't stop the circulation of weapons. Even if all guns in the world would be to suddenly be incinerated, it is still possible to make more. That's what syndicate weapon manufacturers are for.

Too bad you're wrong, pal. "[Dan Oates, Police Chief] said the guns were purchased legally by Holmes at stores in the Denver area in the past two months. More than 6,000 rounds of ammunition were also purchased online, according to Oates." (that'll be the CNN for you). Surely people who want to get their hands on a gun will also get through the illegal channels, but if you already make the existing processes a bit more complicated, those who are less inclined will step back. Or else, how come all the countries with stricter gun laws have their crimes by handguns reduced?

Saying that stricter gun laws will leave civilians "unharmed", is quite frankly, bullshit. You are implying that people who enter homes and harm innocent people (eventually, as I imagined, in order to steal things) are in fact sophisticated criminals with powerful weapons, while in most of the times, I'm afraid it's just desperate people who have nothing to lose. Stealing a gun is possible, and you're right on that, but acquiring it legally nowadays seems simpler, so why not just making it stricter?

Or maybe all those movies you see on the internet about Americans being obsessed with weapons are just a mere exaggeration of the real events.

Also, after all, even with some proper gun regulation, the same civilians you talk about would have nothing to hide, and would be able to acquire a weapon if they're legit, or am I wrong? I feel like you see "gun control" as some sort of "hippy-shamalama-no-more-guns-and-just-acids" theory, while it's absolutely not the case.

[Souran]

I think you missed my point for the most part. The equipment he was using was tear gas, a substance which is illegal for civilian use. He acquired that illegally. The statement about 'less inclined' is also moronic. No one just wakes up in the morning and decides they're going to go shoot someone and then decide not to as the regulations are too high. If someone is planning to kill someone, they will find a way. They don't give a crap about the law.

For the most part, I think you misread a lot of my points. I don't know where you got your 2nd paragraph from as I said 'unarmed' as in no guns, not unharmed. And where the hell did I imply that I think criminals are sophisticated or even armed? Criminals are savages, and due to that fact, do not care about laws or regulations. This paragraph didn't make a stitch of sense to be honest.

The problem with gun regulations in general is that it slows down the process dramatically for the acquisition of firearms for self-defense. People who need it cannot go and acquire it with the amount of bureaucracy that it requires. People need to go to work, look after the family and attend mandatory functions. All that firearm purchasing should require is a safety test and a registration.

[Cajak]

(22-07-2012 10:27 AM)Souran Wrote:  I think you missed my point for the most part. The equipment he was using was tear gas, a substance which is illegal for civilian use. He acquired that illegally. The statement about 'less inclined' is also moronic. No one just wakes up in the morning and decides they're going to go shoot someone and then decide not to as the regulations are too high. If someone is planning to kill someone, they will find a way. They don't give a crap about the law.

I'm afraid it wasn't the tear gas that killed those people. Also, I could be willing to shoot down the entire apartment I live in, but there is a difference between "acquiring a gun" and "acquiring a gun legally".

(22-07-2012 10:27 AM)Souran Wrote:  For the most part, I think you misread a lot of my points. I don't know where you got your 2nd paragraph from as I said 'unarmed' as in no guns, not unharmed. And where the hell did I imply that I think criminals are sophisticated or even armed? Criminals are savages, and due to that fact, do not care about laws or regulations. This paragraph didn't make a stitch of sense to be honest.

Oh, thanks Nick, reading issue, my bad. However, my point stands: "Gun control disarms the innocent and leaves them as free game for criminals who don't follow the law as they are criminals", that's the non-sophisticated people I was talking about. People who normally plan to commit a crime (burglary, extortion, etc.) do not get into serious business for acquiring weapons, and in many cases in the US they generally get their stuff from legal channels. Also, the majority of such criminals aren't experts (that's what I meant). Obviously, if some regulation was enacted, crimes would still take place, but surely they would be reduced, don't you think?

It's like one of those protections people put on sockets for babies: nothing tells you they're touching them, but you're still preventing them from being hurt. Then, if they do, at least you missed an accident.

(22-07-2012 10:27 AM)Souran Wrote:  All that firearm purchasing should require is a safety test and a registration.

Which is what laws would technically do, and currently don't, considering what has been happening not only now, but in the last decades.

In the meantime, here's some Republican Space Rangers.

[Souran]

I do not live in the US, so I cannot honestly speak about what it is like there (neither can you, actually) but I can speak for SA, which has lived through two phases. One which guns were easy to obtain legally and two, were regulated so heavily that you're lucky if you can pick up a Lawson .22.

With the former, crime was almost non-existent. Every Afrikaaner on his farm owned a rifle and if they happened to be a member of the Commandos, as most were, an LMG to boot. Farm raids and murders were non-existent during this time. Since the ANC regulated weapons, people have been disarmed and farm murders have been up to the point that people are seeking asylum on the grounds of genocide.

An illegal weapon is easy to get. I could go down to Lavender Hill right now and buy an Ak-47 for R250 (I'm being completely serious). An illegal weapon is not registered and anyone can acquire it. A legal weapon on the other hand is registered and therefore can be tracked back to a customer if they do happen to be stupid enough to use it. Regulations and bureaucratic nonsense forces innocents away from self-defense and encourages criminals to purchase illegal weapons. Now matter how many laws you instate, criminals will continue to be criminals.

[CaseyHamlin]

Gun control will do absolutely nothing, just look at what happened after we started banning and regulating drugs. The ban on drugs empowered the cartels, and restricting certain guns and making the purchase of guns more difficult will only influence and empower more underground groups. If the person is as determined as this guy was, they will still get the guns, they will still kill people. And although the rate of gun related violence may go down a little, it will still be a major issue, and we will be fighting both the underground gun sellers and the gun violence on the street. That is my two cents.

[BrandonKim]

So what could be behind all of this? My two cents are that it is because of bad influences, like who you associate with or what you view. Anyway, like I said, those are my two cents.

[Senya]

Here in Norfolk, we have the have the highest amount of guns (shotguns & firearms) per 100,000 people in England (2nd in the UK only to Powys). Now, Norfolk has one of the lowest crime rates in the UK (we're consistently ranked in the top 10 for lowest crime rates, according to the poster outside my local police station).

So why do we have a far less gun crime rate than the US, infact which is almost non-existant?

Well, UK gun law is very strict, and people can have their weapons confiscated even with the slightest hint of agression. Buying ammunition is very difficult too. Also, people in Norfolk don't reach for their guns when someone burgles their house. They ring the police. We also have Community Watch schemes that encourage people to look at anything suspicious going on at your neighbour's house (i.e. Someone trying to break in).

You don't need guns, you need some common sense.

[Souran]

I think the lack of bullets must have something to do with it.