The Dark Knight Rises shooting and Gun Control

To be honest,I don't know why there is so much attention for this event.Yes,of course it is tragic(not only the killings but the fact that it happened on the movie premiere and people were so happy and excited to see it) but well..psychos happen. :/
Also I read that the killer said that he was The Joker.It's a shame that directors can't make interesting and evil characters because some people take movies too seriously..

__________________
"Anything less than immortality is a complete waste of time."

If I were a monkey, I'd be throwing poop at some of you right now.

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...

You lifted this whole thing from GunCite, right? Because it's from 1993. Japan's crime rate is higher now, for one.

What's kind of incredible about Japan is that despite banning swords and most guns, you still get the occasional knife-based massacre. They had something like three in one year, I believe, and now there are rumblings about knife control, too. So if you think Japan is a shining example, how do you feel about that? About having to give up any knife more than 5.9 inches? Is that what you would call a free society?

Regardless, there are massive cultural differences between Japan and the United States, as discussed a bit here (and in a few other places, if you're interested). The basic idea is that there's not much culture of questioning authority or asserting individual independence there. In some ways that's good, and in others, it's obviously bad.

So how about this theory: gun control can theoretically work, but a) it never stops massacres, it just changes the weapons used for them, and b) the society has to be willing to suppress their general sense of individualism. Individualism and chafing against authority go hand in hand; we can't surgically remove just the parts of that fierce independence we don't like.

Well put.. I s'pose..

I'm not sure if Dex or anyone not actually from America can really understand what you're getting at Yoda. It's so easy to take shots at America but very few really understand what it actually means to be American. Talking about removing freedoms is easy to do but very difficult to accomplish here. Which is a good thing.

Yeah, I dunno. I think the main thing is that they think they can do some kind of cultural lobotomy. That we can be all passive in one area but keep being fiercely independent in another. But you can't separate culture out like that, keeping individualism and all its fruits (creative, technological, etc.), but discarding the part that chafes against restrictions. It's both a blessing and a curse, and it can't be compartmentalized that way. Being a more passive people would definitely solve some problems. It'd also create others. An American population that doesn't mind strict weapons control is one that probably just stays a British colony.

There's also sheer size. There are any number of policies that are a lot more plausible on a country a tenth of our size, so most of the comparisons are inherently ridiculous. I know people who are for gun control but think it very well may be impossible on a country with hundreds of millions of people in it. America is large and very spread out. It is not easily policed. And you know what? There are lots of instances in which that's a good thing.

Oh, and I forgot to mention: the thing you read about Canada and wealth, Justin, is about household wealth, and it's almost entirely due to fluctuating home valuations during the credit crisis. Canada's GDP is still about a tenth of the United States'.

That said, given our policies over the last few years, it looks as if Canada is actually economically freer than we are these days (I believe it's largely due to low government spending, but I'd have to check), so there's definitely something to emulate there. There just hasn't been some dramatic sea change.

So here's my "two cents" or whatever. I'm a lifelong (pretty much) proponent of not owning or shooting or even being around guns. In the last few months I've done a little shooting and am becoming familiar with how to use them safely and what not. My personal beliefs about the world have made it a little more sensible to me, to perhaps get a few guns for our home and my wife agrees with this idea. In fact I plan to apply to get a CWP before the end of the year. Change can be good and you're allowed to change your mind here in the US.

To me, that's America in a nutshell. As much as I bitch about a lot of the stupid things I see going on in this country there are still a lot of freedoms that I have that many can't, won't or will not ever have. And I want the right to defend myself. I need it.

But Chris, don't you see that this wasn't actually a process of consideration and reasoning, as it appears to be, but actually the expression of the same deep psychosomatic sexual insecurity that all gun owners have?

He said with a smile.

Where is the line? Should civilian Americans have the freedom to own surface-to air missiles?

Besides which, do you really and truly honestly believe you enjoy any extra special super duper freedoms than us Canuckians because of the Gun thing?

__________________
"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.

You can use that argument the other way: where is the line? Should civilians be allowed to own butter knives?

Everybody knows and agree that there's a line, man. We just disagree about precisely where it goes.

Pop quiz.

Would the recent massacre at the Dark Knight showing had happened if firearms were not available for pirchase.

yes or no will suffice.


because 3 knife massacre instances are surely equal to what, 12,000 odd homicides via gun right?

gimme a break.

And the hellish situation would have been more hellish if a couple of average Joe citizens, not trained law enforcement officers, started shooting. The chances they would take the nutjob out are remote, he had body armor and was in the back row, and more likely would have added to the body count.

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

I have no idea. He might have just bought one illegally. He seemed determined enough.

I didn't say anything of the sort. What I did say was that even when you've restricted weapons that heavily, massacres still happen and people still stick to the misguided notion that you can stop them by restricting the weapons involved. People don't let go of that notion even when you've whittled it down to knives.

Were you going to answer the questions I asked about knives? Do you think those are reasonable laws? Yes or no will suffice.

Sheer size. yep another thing the founding fathers never in a zillion years could forsee.

Which again means, oh idk, that maybe America might want to create a brand new spanken constitution that is more in line with the realities of the here, now and forseeable future.

Would you concede that the vast majority (say 90%) of gun nuts (meaning those that dont have weapons for hunting or skeet shooting and the like), are not part of a well regulated militia, and therefore there is absolutely no rights that can be claimed to be infringed upon in accordance with the founding fathers.

I think its a retarded argument.

There is a reason the Gatling gun wiped out the Samurai Class 600 years ago.

Its much easier to kill a man. strike that, many men by firen from a distance than it is up close and personal.

It takes balls to kill a man that waym because the likliehood of getting killed yourself is high.

Shooting a gun, not so much.

"And maybe you also support more laws that makes killing someone unarmed legal because you don't like his looks"

Oh, sorry, you said maybe. Clearly, your statement was totally reasonable, and not aggressively ignorant.

You know, it doesn't bother me that people think this might be true. It might. It's possible. What bothers me is that you have the arrogance to say it as if you not only know, but as if it's somehow obvious.

My position is, as it has been from the beginning, that I think it's better when people being slaughtered are not defenseless. Any one who thinks this is a controversial statement is, in my opinion, pretty damned confused, and letting the politics of the situation cloud their minds to what should be a very self-evident thing. Either way, if your entire argument is just to pretend you know these sorts of things, then there's not a lot else to say. I can't argue with Imaginary Expertise.

Physchos happen yes. they just seem to happen way more in the US per capita compared to the civilized world, but yeah eazy access to guns and ammo surely is a cowinkydink.

/thread.

They could foresee population growth, but not necessarily the second-order complications that come from it. America is an odd combination of geographical size and a massive population. The idea that some of our problems stem from this isn't a new or unusual one.

A new Constitution is a massive, massive change for any government. It's not to be undertaken lightly, particularly when it's served us so well for so long. The burden of proof on even Amending it, let alone scrapping it, is enormously high, and rightfully so.

No, and I answered this before, when you posted "well regulated" in a size 7 font. Here was my reply:

"But we're not in that militia just by virtue of owning the gun, either. The right cannot be infringed because we might need the militia, is the idea. And multiple courts have ruled as such."

The right to gun ownership is based on the potential need for a militia, and that militia--if formed--is to be well regulated. It's not that complicated. And, frankly, even if you skipped over that part, it's not as if "well regulated" would tell you much.