Another Movie Theatre Shooting

[Balta1701]

And people who buy guns (legally) have to register with the government as well. I'd fully support initiatives that made guns harder to obtain, but that's still a long ways from a complete and total ban.

As I've said before, you could probably convince me that there would be ways to allow legal, private ownership, or at least "death tourism parks" or whatever you want to call them where such things are ok, but we're in a world where people think that carrying their gigantic death instrument through an airport makes them cool and that should be allowed everywhere and thousands of people die every year for no other reason than a gun is present. When that's where we currently are....f*** it.

[bmags]

Plus, we should also care about "gang violence" related deaths anyway. A lot of times it's innocent bystanders, and even when it's not, it's still a major part of the cycle of poverty and violence.

 

It's the "our death rate is higher due to higher # of criminals", which I question the rate at which it would be higher to the degree they imagine.

[EvilMonkey]

thousands of people die every year for no other reason than a gun is present.

Exaggerate much? No other reason? Got it.

[bmags]

Exaggerate much? No other reason? Got it.

 

I love how you think that's so outlandish. If you remove the item that makes killing hundreds of times easier, how many of those would still be deaths.

 

We have a hint, and its other countries without as many guns.

[StrangeSox]

Coming to a neighborhood near you: gun-firing drones

 

[EvilMonkey]

I love how you think that's so outlandish. If you remove the item that makes killing hundreds of times easier, how many of those would still be deaths.

 

We have a hint, and its other countries without as many guns.

They don't die just because a gun is present. A human action is required. Guns are inanimate objects and do not just go off and hunt people down.

[StrangeSox]

They don't die just because a gun is present. A human action is required. Guns are inanimate objects and do not just go off and hunt people down.

Necessary vs. sufficient causes. Would the person still be alive if a gun had not been present?

[EvilMonkey]

Necessary vs. sufficient causes. Would the person still be alive if a gun had not been present?

so anytime a person dies and a gun is present, they would be alive if the gun wasn't there. Got it.

[StrangeSox]

so anytime a person dies and a gun is present, they would be alive if the gun wasn't there. Got it.

In some but not all cases of deaths caused by guns, the person would still be alive if a gun had not been present.

[Balta1701]

I love how you think that's so outlandish. If you remove the item that makes killing hundreds of times easier, how many of those would still be deaths.

 

We have a hint, and its other countries without as many guns.

Especially with the suicides. When the Israeli army stopped allowing their soldiers to bring guns home with them on the weekends, they saw a 40% drop in their suicide rate almost immediately. Suicide isn't a logical action, it's an emotional one. If people find that they have an easy option during that emotional moment, the end result is a casualty. If people get through that moment, the desire to do so often ends. That's why suicide hotlines are effective - you get people through that one instant and they start dealing with the issues on a more normal level. You take away the easy out, forcing people to put effort into it or think beforehand and the suicide rate drops dramatically.

[caulfield12]

In some but not all cases of deaths caused by guns, the person would still be alive if a gun had not been present.

 

 

How man children under the age of 12 or 14 die in accidental in-home shootings?

 

One would have to follow the logic that without the presence of a deadly weapon that was accessible (for whatever reason), this category of deaths would be 98% preventable.

 

 

 

[bmags]

How man children under the age of 12 or 14 die in accidental in-home shootings?

 

One would have to follow the logic that without the presence of a deadly weapon that was accessible (for whatever reason), this category of deaths would be 98% preventable.

 

If you remove gang members it's probably 0%. #baltalogic

[BigEdWalsh]

I don't know how anyone can go to the movies, or really anywhere in public, without a handgun for protection.

Are you serious? I've been doing it for 65 years and I'm still ok.

[greg775]

I was just thinking most of the people I know who carry, men and women, don't do it out of fear, but out of anger. They don't want to be cowering under a theater seat praying someone comes and solves their problem. They want to stop the SOB who is terrorizing their community and terrorizing the good people. They want to stand up to the evil instead of hiding in the dark waiting for help to arrive and hoping it is in time.

 

I'm certain there are some who are afraid of criminals and carry out of fear, just as there are people who are afraid of guns and the people who carry them. Perhaps we need better education to bridge some gaps there.

Tex you are a great person and should run for office!

[Jenksismyhero]

How man children under the age of 12 or 14 die in accidental in-home shootings?

 

One would have to follow the logic that without the presence of a deadly weapon that was accessible (for whatever reason), this category of deaths would be 98% preventable.

 

IIRC the CDC site I was looking at earlier said it was like 1,600/year. Laws are already on the books in like 30 states to "prevent" that. It still happens.

 

4,000 people drown every year accidentally. #banwater Without the water they would still be alive.

 

[greg775]

i know if I was a millionaire, thailand would be the first place i would want to move to after a theater shooting. Because thailand is safe

I might have gotten the country wrong. I'll ask him again. He did research and the country he wants to move to has absolutely no murders.

 

This has been pointed out before. Greg doesn't read these posts.

Crime is down you say? OK there are some figures. I accept them. But please people don't bury your heads in teh sand and say the media is over sensationalizing this stuff and it is not a real problem. Random killings are a problem! And a growing problem! You can't deny that! The media reports on this crap when it happens. Some nut whips out a gun in a dark theatre and starts killing people, yes, unfortunately people want to know a lot about the incident. There are ultimately some heroes and a lot of stories. These stories must be covered and not buried under the rug. I do wish we could stop even referring to the person's name in these stories. Just call him "the gunman" and go ahead and write about what kind of person he was, whom he was affiliated with etc, but try to not mention the killer's name if possible.

Edited July 24, 2015 by greg775

[caulfield12]

Tex you are a great person and should run for office!

 

 

Greg, basically you're describing a mixture of Donald Trump with the aggressive nature of Michael Douglas' character in the "white men fight back" movie Falling Down.

 

While we've probably all sympathized with the breakfast at the fast food restaurant (why doesn't the food ever look like the pictures on the menu? I want my breakfast even though it's 10:31!) scene, perhaps threatening everyone with a handgun to get whatever you want won't work if everyone starts to do that.

 

What if two Trumps meet each other? How will they avoid a "saving face" confrontation...and de-escalate it? From his appearance on the Scarborough show, it seems he wants to just provoke arguments over anything at this point.

 

Imagine the leaders of Iran or North Korea did anything remotely offensive...like airing a propaganda/satire movie (The Interview crossed with You've Been Trumped). Is there any conceivable way to imagine they wouldn't be nuked out of existence? If someone shouted "you lie!" during a speech to Congress (or threw shoes at him) he'd just pull out a revolver and blast away.

 

Is that what we really want to be teaching our children? For every would-be hero who saves someone, there are going to be ten who get themselves and a number of innocent bystanders killed.

 

Do we want "good samaritan" laws that protect civilians who accidentally kill others in public with handguns?

Edited July 24, 2015 by caulfield12

[Balta1701]

Random killings are a problem! And a growing problem! You can't deny that!

Mass shootings definitely appear to be a growing problem (204 days this year, 204 mass shootings in the U.S.). However, the number of "random killings" or "cases where the victim is unknown the the offender" has gone down over the last several years as well according to FBI stats.

[greg775]

Greg, basically you're describing a mixture of Donald Trump with the aggressive nature of Michael Douglas' character in the "white men fight back" movie Falling Down.

 

While we've probably all sympathized with the breakfast at the fast food restaurant (why doesn't the food ever look like the pictures on the menu? I want my breakfast even though it's 10:31!) scene, perhaps threatening everyone with a handgun to get whatever you want won't work if everyone starts to do that.

 

What if two Trumps meet each other? How will they avoid a "saving face" confrontation...and de-escalate it? From his appearance on the Scarborough show, it seems he wants to just provoke arguments over anything at this point.

 

Imagine the leaders of Iran or North Korea did anything remotely offensive...like airing a propaganda/satire movie (The Interview crossed with You've Been Trumped). Is there any conceivable way to imagine they wouldn't be nuked out of existence? If someone shouted "you lie!" during a speech to Congress (or threw shoes at him) he'd just pull out a revolver and blast away.

 

Is that what we really want to be teaching our children? For every would-be hero who saves someone, there are going to be ten who get themselves and a number of innocent bystanders killed.

 

Do we want "good samaritan" laws that protect civilians who accidentally kill others in public with handguns?

 

But you are assuming these people who LEGALLY have guns on them will do what you suggest ... lose their tempers and start firing. If so, then these law abiding citizens must spend the rest of their lives imprisoned which is not what they want. You make good points. But I dunno. I want to fight back against the nutjobs when they do these things. It's so cowardly to whip out weapons in dark movie theatres and start firing. Pisses me off. Would be nice to see him stopped before the damage continues. Tex would have shot him after the first blast of the gunman's gun.

 

[bmags]

I might have gotten the country wrong. I'll ask him again. He did research and the country he wants to move to has absolutely no murders.

 

Probably Singapore.

[StrangeSox]

They don't die just because a gun is present. A human action is required. Guns are inanimate objects and do not just go off and hunt people down.

http://nbc4i.com/2015/07/23/armed-citizens...ruiting-center/

http://www.people.com/people/mobile/articl...0902537,00.html

Edited July 24, 2015 by StrangeSox

[caulfield12]

Probably Singapore.

 

There was just an article at yahoo travel about how safe (unless you have weed or gum), hot/muggy, expensive and boring (mostly shopping malls and restaurants) it was there...the main point of the article was that tourism was way down in Singapore as well as Dubai.

[StrangeSox]

I'd imagine a rich person moving to Singapore is mainly to dodge taxes

[Balta1701]

Tex would have shot him after the first blast of the gunman's gun.

Be honest and think here.

 

In a movie theater, under fire, it's dark, only light is from the screen. You really think that under fire, probably from behind, you could turn around, aim, and get a clean shot off without accidentally hitting the wrong person? While the person has a semi-automatic handgun and can keep pulling the trigger?

 

Per the police, as the crowd was leaving the theater this guy snuck into it and almost got out of the theater before someone stopped the crowd/stopped him. The people fleeing the room didn't identify the shooter as he left the theater with the group. They couldn't tell. Now you're telling me you could honestly figure out who the shooter was with enough accuracy to pull the trigger?

 

The closest example of a mass shooting interacting with a person carrying a weapon I can think of is the Gabrielle Giffords shooting and the person across the street who had the gun nearly shot the wrong person. And that was in the daylight.

[LittleHurt05]

Mass shootings definitely appear to be a growing problem (204 days this year, 204 mass shootings in the U.S.). However, the number of "random killings" or "cases where the victim is unknown the the offender" has gone down over the last several years as well according to FBI stats.

 

I wonder what those numbers look like if you excluded Chicago. It seems to be the one place where it's getting worse. (And Milwaukee )