The Dark Knight Rises shooting and Gun Control

You are completely misinformed. Holmes didn't have a firearm that can fire "60 bullets in one minute". You are trying to describe his AR-15, or "assault rifle". This rifle is only capable of firing one bullet every time the trigger is pulled, exactly the way you described a handgun. It's semi automatic. Not a quasi-machine gun. The round that it fires is actually a smaller caliber than his handgun.

It's unfortunate that people don't actually understand what an "assault rifle" is. Did you know that in order to own the type of weapon you think you are portraying, or a fully automatic, suppressed, or short barreled rifle, you actually have to pass an investigation, pay a tax, and have all serial numbers and personal information on file with the ATF? I bet there are more regulations than you could begin to imagine when it comes to true "machine guns". But Holmes. He didn't have one. He pulled the trigger, and it went bang. So did his handgun. So did his shotgun.

__________________
If I had a dollar for every existential crisis I've ever had, does money really even matter?

They all kill people. Who gives a **** what type of gun he had in his possession? They should all be banned. Take a look at Europe. You don't see nearly as many tragedies as you do here in the United States. This place is sickeningly obsessed with guns. It's a fetish.

The fact still remains that strict gun laws simply will not work. It's already against the law for felons to own firearms. Many states in the US do have strict gun laws. You can't legally buy firearms in D.C or New York, but those places are littered with gun violence. What about drugs? Some of our most strict laws are the prohibition of mind altering drugs and the trafficking thereof, but drug sales and use are virtually unaffected. Why would criminals already breaking drug, burglary, robbery, and rape laws all of a sudden obey gun laws? If someone is so severely screwed up that they want to take the life of someone else, then legislation against guns is going to do what? Nothing. If anything, prevent their target from defending himself.

It absolutely is. It's Freudian. It's penis worship.

But I mean, I kinda like that.

Maybe you should explain why there is such a large difference between the United States and Europe. Why are people there less violent? Numerous friends of mine come from Europe. All of which will admit that coming here, they were surprised with how much poverty (the class differences was a culture-shock to them in particular), violence and drug abuse we have here. It's unheard of there. Some countries are having trouble, but by and large, they're more well-off than we are. I read somewhere that the average Canadian is actually wealthier than the average American.

You should take a look at what other countries are doing towards the drug problem. Portugal has decriminalized drugs, so every time a person is caught, they're treated as a person with an addiction rather than as a criminal. They've reduced their numbers by 60%--or 70%, I can't remember the figure, it's on NPR, though--yet no one takes notice of what they're doing right. My point is not to bring up every controversial issue, but to try and see what exactly is wrong with our country. Why do we have more problems with these subjects? It's sad.

You sound quite knowledgeable and informed about firearms, certainly moreso than I am. At the same time, the reports that I have read stated that the shooter had a gun with a 100 round clip. That would enable him to shoot up to 60 bullets within a minute, all without having to reload. Is this or is this not correct, or am I misinformed on that? This was stated by the Aurora Police Chief. If it is correct, than it seems to me a pretty inarguable point that having a handgun where you can only fire 5 or 6 shots without having to reload, is going to inflict a lot less casualties, and a lot less injury, than the possession of a weapon where there is the potential to shoot up to 100 rounds without having to reload. If you disagree with this, please tell me where I am going wrong. I fail to see how what I am saying is anything other than logically sound.

Are you serious? Europe has a lot of poverty, a lot!!!

Have you seen Los Angeles or New York City? It's a nightmare. Take a ride down to Skidrow in downtown LA, it's practically a Hooverville. I've been to Barcelona (same with London, Paris, Rome) several times and saw nothing close to the amount of poverty we have here.

On the gun issue: in fact, just a few blocks from where I used to live (near Hollywood and Vine) there was some madmen running around firing a gun at people. This is not common in Spain. Common in LA? Yes. Detroit? Yes.

I'm not trying to downplay Europe's problems, but these are issues that everyone else seems to have (to some degree, anyway) covered, while we're still trying to simply carve out a decent way of handling our countries' (phallic) obsession with weaponry.

America is scary. I wanna move.

I take your point, however have been to east Europe? The Ex Soviet Union countries?

Australia is beautiful, though we probably won't take you! lol!

Sure, those countries are still struggling. Take a look at Greece. No one is saying that Europe is perfect. However, they are the product of a government that has been spending recklessly year after year. It's not because of their institutions, it's the people involved. Sweden is one of the most socialized countries in Europe, yet they're doing just fine. They also have a very, very low percentage of gun violence (this includes homicides, obviously).

Look at the figures anywhere. Greece in particular has a very low figure in terms of homicides committed annually (we're talking 100's, 200's), while the United States is in the thousands. Even Spain is relatively low, along with Italy, whose numbers have steadily gone down over the years (the figures start at 1995).

Feels like LA online.

Okay, U.S. has 300 Million people and I think Greece have maybe 35-50 Million people. Spain 60-80 Million people, however you know the stats in the old Soviet Union? Of course you don't, no one knows!!

Compare 9,000 homicides in the United States to 90 in Spain, both in 2009. Spain had a homicidal rate of 0.2 for 100,000 people; while the United States had a rate of 2.98 for 100,000 people. That's ridiculous.

I wasn't aware of the 100 round magazine. Fortunately, the unreliability of those magazines caused his rifle to jam. Look, what I disagree with is your rhetoric. He could fire as many rounds as his pointer finger commanded regardless of the firearms name, capacity, caliber, or legality. I pretty much always hate scenario based speculation, but tactically, Holmes could've caused way more damage reloading standard capacity magazines. The springs feed more efficiently, and reloading literally takes 5 seconds. Also, 5 or 6 rounds in a handgun without reloading? Try 17 or 18. We shouldn't be talking about what the weapons did or didnt do, we should be talking about Holmes being completely mad. He could've just as easily chose to blow up the theater with an illegaly made bomb similar to the ones he rigged his apartment with.

One more thing. Earlier you omitted shotguns from your ban scenario. That was by far the most dangerous firearm Holmes had with him that night. With one pull of the trigger he was unloading hundreds of pellets capable of maiming or killing.

The misinformation sucks for responsible gun owners. I shoot for sport and selectively carry for protection. I am also very use to how circular these discussions become.

__________________
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo.

What if he could only aquire a 1770's era musket? How much damage could he do?



I think he'd get one shot off, and then get gang tackled. Or, more likely wouldnt attempt the suicide mission in the 1st place.

What fact would that be? You pulled that straight out of your bum.

Explain Japan for me if you would then, as they have the most stringent gun laws in the world which equals
Gun Possession and Gun Crime: Almost Nil.

The only type of firearm which a Japanese citizen may even contemplate acquiring is a shotgun. Sportsmen are permitted to possess shotguns for hunting and for skeet and trap shooting, but only after submitting to a lengthy licensing procedure. Without a license, a person may not even hold a gun in his or her hands.

The licensing procedure is rigorous. A prospective gun owner must first attend classes and pass a written test. Shooting range classes and a shooting test follow; 95 per cent pass.After the safety exam, the applicant takes a simple 'mental test' at a local hospital, to ensure that the applicant is not suffering from a readily detectable mental illness. The applicant then produces for the police a medical certificate attesting that he or she is mentally healthy and not addicted to drugs.


Civilians may also apply for licenses to possess air rifles--low-power guns that are powered by carbon dioxide rather than by gunpowder.

Civilians can never own handguns. Small calibre rifles were once legal, but in 1971, the Government introduced new legislation banning them (grandfather clause exception)

Can you show me a single example of this working?

Well, it's there. It's not wise to draw conclusions based on anecdotal evidence like "me and my friends went to some place for a bit and it didn't seem as poor."

You can't blithely psychoanalyze 300 million people. Especially when your conclusion is as convenient as "hey, turns out this isn't actually a complicated legal and social problem about the balance between risk and freedom. Turns out it's just that people who disagree with me do it out of primitive sexual insecurity! Shame they aren't as enlightened as I am." This is simplistic and insulting, and most importantly, it isn't an argument.