Colorado Shooting Created 12 years ago2012-07-20 22:54:29 UTC by satchmo

I don't see how this changes anything anyway. Even if they ban guns you know what happens? It goes underground and people WILL own them illegaly, especially if they had them to begin with.

Also, I'm afraid I have to say this but P-90? drool

ya hotdog, i would LOVE to have a real m4.. it's such a pretty weapon.. I probably wouldn't shoot it much if i did, just clean it, oil in, and polish it with a diaper, fresh out of a shower in my dressing gown

I'd love to have both a P-90 and an M4, but not real ones. Externally exact replicas for modeling purposes. Both 3D and photographic.
Oh, and to use as movie props too. But I'd need a decent camera first.

Really, that should be all you need to protect yourself. They don't need to fire bullets, just make whoever is threatening you think they do.

But the moment "externally exact replicas" become commonplace, potential attackers won't be afraid of anybody pointing a gun at them. Because they'll know they are just inexpensive and mechanically inert replicas.

Also anybody could go rob a bank with inert replicas. Because victims woulnd't know if it is the real deal or not.

Only in America can a psychopathic 24 year old acquire all those guns, explosives, and chemical gas so easily

yea you're rightCuz its so hard to find guns in countries where they are illegal.

Some of those kids need to work on their trigger discipline, wtf.

So I'm thinking that America should impose mandatory background checks, psyche evaluations, and training for buying weapons. This would ensure criminals and the insane would have less chance of legally obtaining weapons, and also that if someone absolutely feels they need to kill someone specific, they're less likely to hit people in the crossfire.

At the very least, if we can't get rid of shootings, we can try and lower collateral.

that's the problem with psychopaths, they are usually intelligent, and on the surface appear completely normal, until they decide to strike.

I'm not a psychologist but i don't think there is any way to screen for these people. If his own parents/friends/mentors never noticed he was messed up and found him some help, i don't think any sort of background check or a 20-minute meeting with a psychologist is gonna catch it, but maybe i'm wrong?

Sociopath. A sociopath is generally able to appear normal, but do not feel emotions such as remorse or empathy. A psychopath has trouble keeping emotions such as anger in check, and can be very easy to set off in a dangerous manner.

Again, probably shouldn't know that.

A psychologist might be able to detect it, but not if the subject is actively hiding it. However, something such as schizophrenia would be much easier to detect, I think.

b'aww i fail at knowledge, thanks for that clarification jeff.

Are sociopaths passive-aggressive psychopaths, or am i comparing carrots with oranges? =P

This entire thread has turned into psychobabble.

it could be worse, and devolve into a category 5 flamefest, which i'm really suprised actually it hasn't.

Basically, Sociopaths don't feel enough, Psychopaths feel too much.
Or at least that's my understanding. Don't feel too bad about now knowing the difference, the media doesn't do a very good job at differentiating either.

The media doesn't do a very good job at ANYTHING.

Except for raising public anxiety.

Too true.

News networks stay in business just like every other network, by having their viewers watch advertisements which they then get paid for. They try to keep you locked in and on the edge of your seat by dramatization and scariness. Just like comedy networks keep you locked on by keeping you laughing and having a good time.

So, watching the court appearance on TV...
he looks...spaced out. If I didn't know he'd been in police custody this whole time, I'd think he's high.
And he doesn't look proud like Anders Brevjik did, or upset, either.

The cops should watch the batman movies, then they might understand him. He was imitating the Joker, and wanted to cause anarchy by killing many people, and he did. Maybe he planned to get away and cause more crimes, probably did. It's clear that he'd been planning this for at least a year, as the police said that the weapons and chemicals/explosives he possessed took him at least a few months to acquire.

The reason the right to keep and bear arms was added into the bill of rights is to protect the people against its own government

man i totally thought it was because back in the day the cowboys wanted to keep their guns and stuff because of the native americans kept getting in the way and so they put it in the law that they could keep guns, because of that. or something like that.

Anyway.

Ive heard of Americans keeping like, semi automatics incase of a home invasion, and thats silly.

i mean, in Australia, its taken me about 6 months to obtain a firearm, because ive had to do things such as - registering for a licence, attending a practical and theory exam, having an inspection on firearm storage within my house, applying for a permit to aquire a gun etc. And even then ill only end up with something like a single shot rifle...

Even the police in England dont carry guns on them and thats a bit of a sensible thing actually.

Sort of. Even if they don't carry them on their belts, I'm sure your police have access to them. They do need to be prepared to protect their civilians in case the unimaginable happens. Our police don't all walk around with shotguns and such if that's the impression outsiders get, although all of them do have a handgun on their belts, which is strapped securely into their holsters. They don't get taken out unless the officer feels his life is directly threatened.

I've actually got a story about my small hometown that really sums this all up. It's such a small quiet place, that when we had our only gun crime in ten or fifteen years, our police officers didn't actually know what to do. A doctor with a latent mental disorder snapped and held his wife hostage with a gun. Our officers all carry handguns in their belts at all times, but when push came to shove, backup from larger cities and a special team needed to be called in to deal with the unimaginable because our officers never use their guns, ever.

The few and far between instances of police brutality that make the news can't really throw off our perception of our officers, who are mostly average joes, your uncles and such.

I always try to look at things from both sides. I've heard different arguments from both sides of the whole gun debate that raise good points. For example, the cinema apparently banned the carrying of firearms in the building. That left the law abiding people who normally carry guns unable to do anything. There is also the fact that in most US states, in order to carry a concealed firearm you have to get a license, for which you will have to take training courses and such so that if you needed your gun you would be able to use it effectively. People who would have been legally carrying a gun wouldn't have just started popping off shots in the direction of the shooter, and would have been thinking about the fact that they might end up shooting bystanders by mistake.
On the other hand however, this took place in a dark and noisy place. The guy had set off smoke grenades. Most people would have been confused as to what was happening, they couldn't really see the shooter, and all it would have taken is one guy carrying a gun with too much faith in his abilities to cause more harm than good. Also, the sound of gunfire from
more than one direction might cause problems with people trying to figure out what direction to escape, or for police responders.
In other words, carrying a gun might be a good idea for someone expecting to be mugged, or wanting to defend their homes, but in a mass shooting it would probably only cause harm. In a case like Columbine, where the shooters stayed on site, wandering around looking for people hiding, then someone with a gun might stop the attack. One, or few targets, moving slowly, no other people nearby, in danger of being hit, then someone carrying a gun could help. But that only happens in rare cases, and police responders are usually quick enough to negate this point. Someone carrying a gun might feel they should use it, when it wouldn't help the situation.
This isn't even taking into account how easily the shooter got hi weapons.
In short, gun control isn't really a black or white issue.
My personal opinion is that guns should be legal, but only accessable to those who have gone through evaluations and training. Probably more training than is currently required for concealed carry weapon permits.

I would actually like to own a gun. I seem to be good at target sports. I enjoy archery, and my experience with pellet guns has been positive, so I would be just as interested in target shooting. However, I would consider it perfectly understandable if that wasn't considered a good enough reason to own a gun, and was denied a permit. The fact that permits and such are required means that gun crime is quite rare in Ireland.
However, it should also be considered that outright banning guns wouldn't work for the US. Guns there are widespread. There are lots of places where you can buy a gun without it being registered. There are many, many illegally owned guns in the US, many owned by criminals who wouldn't be afraid to use them. The government couldn't take them off everyone without searching every single building from head to toe. If they were banned, only the law abiding gun owners would hand them in, leaving them unable to defend themselves from those criminals who kept theirs. Gun control and regulation is a good thing, but in a country like the US, it would be extremely difficult to implement.

/myrambling2cents

i mean, in Australia, its taken me about 6 months to obtain a firearm, because ive had to do things such as - registering for a licence, attending a practical and theory exam, having an inspection on firearm storage within my house, applying for a permit to aquire a gun etc. And even then ill only end up with something like a single shot rifle...

And yet we've still had one of the worst massacres by a single person in the world.

although our gun laws have been changed quite a bit since then.

although our gun laws have been changed quite a bit since then.

of course. im not sure if to belive the conspiracys on that massacre though! but they're always trying to tighten the laws even more (like at the moment)