14 dead, in cinema shooting - Page 5

Id rather go to the cinema with James Holmes than with Lil Wayne and his homies

the orange hair = postal guy obv.

On July 21 2012 07:23 waga wrote: Monsters have to look like monsters. The world would be too scary if serial killers look like an average joe !!! There is nothing wrong with his face , stop being pussies.

yep

number of illegal drugs ive seen in my lifetime: loads
number of illegal firearms ive seen: none

Owning guns is OK.

People who buy weapons should be checked.

Automatic weapons/100-round magazines should either be illegal or should be given after strict checkups.

And yes, that WILL stop the majority of massacres (or lessen the number of killed drastically) and will make 0 difference for people who want guns for hunting and personal/home safety.

I'd love to see some numbers...
How many persons died by accident (childs playing with guns etc)
and how many lives were saved because someone had a gun in his house.

It's not the farwest anymore you know ...
your life is not in danger because you don't own a gun ...
bleh ... mentality will not change anyway ... why I bother ...

Isn't hunting easy enough with a rifle? Where's the sport in using automatic weaponry for hunting.

The general population doesn't need assault rilfes, leave that for the miliatary
I can't believe people get their panties in a bunch about te rights of civiliians to have deadly and mass killing weapons. tanks are illegal to own, why can't assault rifles.

It's easy to buy pot
It's not eaasy to buy illegal firearms

a 24 old white kid from aurora colorodo would probably have a tough time finding a guy who sells illegal guns

if this lunatic only had a pistol or a shotgun, 70 people wouldn't have been shot.

Obviously making a law that Guns are illegal to own won't change the fact that people that really want to obtain a gun will eventually get one. But it does make it that much harder to find them. Canada has a Gun Registry where everyone has to go through a bunch of shit to be able to own a gun it hasn't stopped criminals from being able to obtain guns, but I don't know many 24yr old College Students in Vancouver that would have the connections to get a gun illegally.

Gun laws would probably be quite ineffective at reducing this type of gun violence. A person who's been driven this far over the edge is likely to get his weapons regardless. However it is correct to suggest it would be harder for them to do so and a bit more likely for them to get caught. Anything that makes it harder probably isn't a bad thing.

In general gun control laws reduce gun violence because weapons escalate already tense situations. It is statistically proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that carrying a weapon makes you more likely to be hurt as opposed to not having one. The illusion that they make you safer - is just that. People get tense and emotional, someone pulls a weapon and it escalates the situation x1000. If the other person also carries a weapon "for protection" now you have a potential shoot-out. Canadian boarder guards don't carry weapons for that reason. Police in Britain same thing. Possessing a weapon only escalates the potential for serious violence and doesn't make anyone safer. There are times when weapons are going to be necessary but reducing them as much as possible greatly reduces the amount of gun violence.

It's not to say a guy like this couldn't still get his weapons. He'd probably find away. Someone determined to do so will probably succeed eventually. It's just to say he'll be more likely to get caught, he'll have more trouble doing so, and other types of gun violence can be reduced with better laws.

On July 27 2012 10:28 Bejamin1 wrote: Gun laws would probably be quite ineffective at reducing this type of gun violence. A person who's been driven this far over the edge is likely to get his weapons regardless. However it is correct to suggest it would be harder for them to do so and a bit more likely for them to get caught. Anything that makes it harder probably isn't a bad thing. In general gun control laws reduce gun violence because weapons escalate already tense situations. It is statistically proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that carrying a weapon makes you more likely to be hurt as opposed to not having one. The illusion that they make you safer - is just that. People get tense and emotional, someone pulls a weapon and it escalates the situation x1000. If the other person also carries a weapon "for protection" now you have a potential shoot-out. Canadian boarder guards don't carry weapons for that reason. Police in Britain same thing. Possessing a weapon only escalates the potential for serious violence and doesn't make anyone safer. There are times when weapons are going to be necessary but reducing them as much as possible greatly reduces the amount of gun violence. It's not to say a guy like this couldn't still get his weapons. He'd probably find away. Someone determined to do so will probably succeed eventually. It's just to say he'll be more likely to get caught, he'll have more trouble doing so, and other types of gun violence can be reduced with better laws.

really good post

because of the access to assault rifles crazy kids now are killing masses of people instead of doing it the old fashioned way and shooting themselves in the head.
this wont end until some gun control laws are passed. how many high powered guns does an ordinary citizen need anyway?

On July 27 2012 10:28 Bejamin1 wrote: Gun laws would probably be quite ineffective at reducing this type of gun violence. A person who's been driven this far over the edge is likely to get his weapons regardless. However it is correct to suggest it would be harder for them to do so and a bit more likely for them to get caught. Anything that makes it harder probably isn't a bad thing. In general gun control laws reduce gun violence because weapons escalate already tense situations. It is statistically proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that carrying a weapon makes you more likely to be hurt as opposed to not having one. The illusion that they make you safer - is just that. People get tense and emotional, someone pulls a weapon and it escalates the situation x1000. If the other person also carries a weapon "for protection" now you have a potential shoot-out. Canadian boarder guards don't carry weapons for that reason. Police in Britain same thing. Possessing a weapon only escalates the potential for serious violence and doesn't make anyone safer. There are times when weapons are going to be necessary but reducing them as much as possible greatly reduces the amount of gun violence. It's not to say a guy like this couldn't still get his weapons. He'd probably find away. Someone determined to do so will probably succeed eventually. It's just to say he'll be more likely to get caught, he'll have more trouble doing so, and other types of gun violence can be reduced with better laws.

Lobbies think you are wrong... Oh wait nvm

On July 27 2012 10:55 whamm! wrote: because of the access to assault rifles crazy kids now are killing masses of people instead of doing it the old fashioned way and shooting themselves in the head.

/threadlol