Is the Colorado Theater Shooting another wake up call for gun control?
Is the Aurora, Colorado theater shooting during the midnight showing of Dark Knight another wake up call for gun control?
Yes, control guns
Side Score: 28
|
 |
No, there is enough control
Side Score: 84
|
|
|
|
|
This seems to be a textbook example of the misleading vividness fallacy. This is purely anecdotal evidence. Of the 13,000 gun deaths every year, this encompasses 12. But that said, I seriously believe that assault weapons need to be studied on a much wider scale to determine their effect on crime. The fact that a) guns like AR15's are free to public purchase b) were obtained 100% legally and fairly quickly by the shooter (Holmes) is incredibly disturbing. Guns like the AR15, combat grade assault rifles, have one purpose. Not self-defense, not hunting, these weapons are used for slaughtering people. Why they are available to the public is beyond me. You could give me the constitution argument and say people need them because one day the government is going to take over everyone and everything and mass murder all American or some crazy sh*t like that. Or you could contradict the laws of supply and demand by saying criminals will get their hands on them anyway and the supply will stay the same/increase as criminals increase. Handguns and CC liscenses prevent crime and save lives. That is empirically proven. What hasn't been proven and is beyond theoretical reasoning are deadly assault weapons. Assault weapon crimes did go down under the ban imposed until 2004 when it was allowed to expire. I have seen no substantial evidence that more assault weapons and less crime have a positive, causative correlation. Side: Yes, control guns
You could give me the constitution argument and say people need them because one day the government is going to take over everyone and everything and mass murder all American or some crazy shit like that. The Second Amendment is not a prediction, it is a protection from Tyrants taking away our means of staying in power. The idea that it's okay to expand the military and police while greatly limiting the deadly power of the citizenship is the basis for an authoritarian regime. Tyrannical regimes have existed throughout history and continue to exist this very day. There is no reason to believe that the States or Britain are excluded just because they have "Democracy." The States ensured this with the Second Amendment. Side: No, there is enough control
1
point
You have already been "taken over" by the government. You are controlled in every aspect of your life so why do you continue the argument of a tyrannical government? The US was not established as a democracy, but a constitutional republic which is governed by the golden rule....he who has the gold makes the rules. If you think that in todays US the government NEEDS to have its soldiers knocking on your door you are sadly mistaken. The second amendment was put into place at the time in case of invasion by foreign country (since we didnt own the country sea to sea) and has no practical use in todays society. Side: Yes, control guns
I doubt a bunch of hillbillies with guns is going to be much protection should the U.S. military decide suddenly to take over the country. And would that very unlikely scenario apply at all to a voluntary military made up of said citizens? Under what circumstances would either we need to protect ourselves from the military (we couldn't) or under what circumstances would our military be overpowered by another and we'd need guns to defend from this new enemy? Seems a fantasy. If anything guns are the illusion of safety from that perspective, they wouldn't actually do much good should one of these things happen. Side: Yes, control guns
"Assault" rifles are functionally no different from any other magazine-fed hunter's rifle. The only difference is cosmetic. Restrictions on them encompass firearms including but not limited to those having pistol grips, suppressors or folding stocks. People who've never used or touched a firearm for any purpose get upset because "assault" rifles are black and shiny. Switch out the stock for something wooden and suddenly it's a civilian gun. The AR-15 Holmes used was not an assault rifle; it was your plain old everyday boilerplate semi-automatic no different from the average hunting rifle. To say its only purpose is to kill people is patently false. The guy could've used a Hello Kitty .223 and caused the same devastation. The Truth About Semi-Auto Firearms
Side: No, there is enough control
Very true. I've, at times, fired an AR-15 for target practice. It's "devastation" is not very apparent. People seem to act like mass murders, so far, would not exist if assault rifles didn't exist. However, most mass murders are done with hand guns and explosives. Side: No, there is enough control
2
points
The statistics of gun deaths in America compared to countries where we aren't allowed to run around waving guns in the air alone is enough to clinch the argument for me. I don't believe in banning guns, but I believe in the basic right of humans to not get shot at, which trumps the right of humans to shoot at people. In a country like mine where guns are quite stringently controlled, you can freely use guns, but only for non violent purposes. If you have a problem with only being allowed to use guns in a non violent way, then clearly the only reason for that is you want guns to be used in a violent way, which violates the right of other people to protection against violence. Side: Yes, control guns
1
point
Your first sentence is an exaggeration, well our regulations could be different and more effective, that doesn't translate to more stringent gun control. We could be like Switzerland, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Side: No, there is enough control
1
point
For assault rifles, yes. For handguns, arguably. There is no reason to have an assault rifle other than to kill other humans in an efficient, yet large scale manner, that you cannot do with any other gun. Hunting, personal defense, you can do that with a rifle, or a handgun. The only advantage of an assault rifle is to shoot lots of people quickly, something that I see no gain to society in having freely available. Yes, it is entirely possible that someone in the audience would have been carrying a handgun, were all gun control laws abolished, and that peoples lives could have been saved. But the simplest way to help save lives is to ban assault rifles in all cases. Not only does that mean restricting their access (completely) to the public, but it means active efforts on behalf of the police force to restrict criminals access to ARs. In countries like England, with very strict gun laws, it is possible to have a hunting rifle, especially if you live in the countryside, where hunting is much more common. However, there is a significantly lower rate of gun crime, and there is virtually no assault rifles available to anyone (it's a non-issue currently). Only through preventing access to all, not just through legal methods of purchase, will crime be reduced - the main aim of gun control laws. Side: Yes, control guns
2
points
1
point
http://www.allsafedefense.com/news/ Selective use of data & fails to come even close to convincingly show causation. http://www.readperiodicals.com/201007/ Massive lack of statistics. In both countries, guns are banned in target rich areas, so it's logical that gunners would still try and target these areas. It shows little towards causality, and the causation is easily explained. It's also worth remembering that Europe is much larger than the US, in terms of population, so that hardly surprises me. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ Yes, there's violent crime, but not gun crime. Inner London especially has a significant amount of gang warfare. However, this is mostly done with knives, rather than guns. This is almost certainly due to the fact that guns are so hard to come by. The comparison is also quite ridiculous, as in SA, in places like Joburg, there is a massive amount of violent crime, much more than anywhere in England, yet a very small amount of it is reported, because it is so commonplace. So I hold little faith in that article. Side: Yes, control guns
Assault rifles are low- or mid-caliber weapons, designed to fire controllably on full-auto, for engagement ranges of less than 500m, or less than 100m for primary effectiveness. They have been effectively banned in the US since 1934. Assault weapons, as put forth in the 1994 ban, do not have a meaningful definition (see post above). Side: No, there is enough control
0
points
The advantage of an assault weapon over a handgun is massive. Bigger bullets, much more deadly, 30 in a clip rather than 7, a semi auto rifle is massively more dangerous than a handgun. So I still feel that any rifle but a hunting rifle should be banned (hunting rifles have more recoil, less bullets, and massive scopes - much less effective from close range, which is the typical range of mass murders). Side: Yes, control guns
Of course, people just go waltzing down the streets, shooting people because "they felt threatened" (genuine law in some states) and of course innocent people are going to be killed. But no, trigger happy Charlton Heston is too blind to see this. If we all go around carrying guns more people are going to be MURDERED! You might think it's 'cool' to walk around with a weapon, but there're a lot of weirdo's out there who think it's OK to kill people. Give them a firearm ... Not good! Side: Yes, control guns
1
point
I think we need to go with one extreme or the other. Either everyone is educated and carrying guns, or all guns are banned. This middle ground we're on doesn't seem to be working. Personally, I feel that if we're going to have guns, then they should be as common as cars, and treated similarly. I think everyone should require a gun license, which would be similar to a driver's license in almost every way. It would be a valid picture ID, it would require satisfactory completion of gun safety and competence courses as well as written and performance based tests, and would have to be renewed periodically. It should also be as inconvenient not to own a gun or license as it is not to own a car or driver's license. If as many people had firearms and firearm licenses as have cars and driver's licenses, events such as this recent tragedy would be fewer and further between, in my opinion. Side: Yes, control guns
In theory I see what you are saying but more practically it would be a useless gesture. I car license just says you are supposed to understand the basics of firearms usage. How often does someone get a drivers license who does not have the slightest idea how to use a car other than the pedal on the right makes it go. Think how easy it is to get a drivers license and ask yourself is that going to make any difference when someone decides to do something terrible. Side: No, there is enough control
1
point
I agree, the standards for obtaining a driver's license are too lax. One drive around town clearly demonstrates this lol. Sill, I'd prefer lax standards to no standards. If filling out some registration forms, and passing a criminal background check was all one needed to do in order to own and operate a vehicle, I'd bet the roads would be far more hazardous. Side: Yes, control guns
1
point
1
point
|
7
points
2
points
2
points
No, it is the exact the opposite The exact opposite would be forcing people to carry guns. Which would be as much, or more I'd argue, a violation of other's rights than limiting the type of weapon one can carry. So not "opposite." the right to life means private protection of one's own life Okay. But you're arguing guns in general, not controlling the type of guns. You're inflating the opposite position to fit your argument against it better. You can protect yourself (well, psychologically feel like your protecting yourself) with a handgun... with a tazer actually as someone below points out. More gun control will only put more guns in criminals Why would they then get more guns? Seems they'd have the same at most. Less more likely since they'd be more difficult to get at the least. and take out weapons of law abiding citizens. No, it would take assault and semi-automatic weapons out of the hands of both law abiding citizens and psychotics. Sure, drug dealers and whatnot might have as many, or a few less of these guns I'd guess, they'd still have them though, sure. You aren't going to protect yourself from this element of crime though. That is what police are for. Who won't have these types of guns though are psychos like this guy and people who commit spur of the moment crimes. Side: Yes, control guns
Why would they then get more guns? Restrictions on gun ownership would push more guns into the Black Market. The same happened with Prostitution. Prostitution was safe and available to all legal citizens before it was made illegal. Most prostitutes were managed by Madams. Once prostitution was pushed into the Black Market, madams practically disappeared and Pimps took over. Guns in the legal market are to the discretion of the County, State, and Merchant. Gun control (yet not gun BANS) is Constitutional at the State level, so long as legal citizens are not barred from being able to carry guns. This keeps the gun flow regulated without any real regulation, because even States with little to no gun control keep firearms at the discretion of merchants, whom often times choose their customers. but the tighter the restrictions on purchasing weapons, the more guns get pushed into the Black Market. Either by stealing or by importing illegally. This keeps guns out of the hands of legal citizens and into the hands of criminals. The only way to limit guns for criminals (yet eliminating them will be impossible) is to have a Nation wide ban on guns and much tighter control on our borders since many illegal firearms come from south of the border. This calls for much greater border patrol. As well, you create a much higher demand for criminal organizations to either steal weaponry or work more with the Cartel to bring in more guns. Criminals don't just say "no guns? oh well." If their operation requires guns, they will get them. As for killers like John Holmes, while a Nation wide ban on guns may prevent him from shooting up the theater, it won't stop him from killing the people he wants to kill. John Holmes wired his apartment with explosives, and it's not unlikely that he would have used explosives in the theater if he couldn't use guns. That would have, ironically, probably killed more. In fact, the worst school massacre in US history was by explosives. Mass Murderers are truly the only sort of good argument against guns, yet most have not even used assault rifles. John Holmes used an AR-15, a semi-automatic rifle, as assface pointed out, that is no different from a hunting rifle. I've fired guns at a firing range and one of them included an AR-15. it is deadly, but not the Rambo type shit you're thinking of. The ideal way to look at gun control is that it's possible to stop things like this. But the reality is that really... it isn't. Side: No, there is enough control
1
point
The exact opposite would be forcing people to carry guns. The exact opposite of gun control is not forcing people to carry guns, it would actually imply the freedom to purchase and carry a weapon at one's choice. Gun control implies restricting the sale and carry of weapons. The government has no authority to force people to carry guns. But you're arguing guns in general, not controlling the type of guns. No type of gun should be controlled. If someone wants an automatic weapon, they will get it via the black market at the right price. Why would they then get more guns? Seems they'd have the same at most. Less more likely since they'd be more difficult to get at the least. Are you really that stupid? It is called the black market. This is like saying how did people get alcohol during prohibition. "It seems they'd have the same at most, maybe less more likely since they'd be more difficult to get at the least." You are an idiot. No, it would take assault and semi-automatic weapons out of the hands of both law abiding citizens and psychotics. Psychos will get weapons no matter what either at WalMart or black market. You aren't going to protect yourself from this element of crime though. That is what police are for. I am not worried about the mafia or drug dealers because I don't get myself involved with them and they are not worried about me. It appears that the police doesn't either. The government is constantly brided by the mafia and drug dealers to stay off the territory or they will have a city war. Side: No, there is enough control
1
point
1
point
5
points
I say we ban alcohol and Tobacco first then the humans.haha Funny how Marijuana is not on the list. Well lets start with abortion(People) CURRENT DEATH TOLL from January 1, 2012 - July 22, 2012 Abortion: 672792 Heart Disease:362972 Cancer: 305359 Tobacco:194224 Obesity:170362 Stroke: 83320 Chronic lower respiratory diseases:68746 Accidents (unintentional death):60317 Hospital associated infections: 54937 Alcohol:55492 Diabetes:40406 Alzheimer's disease:36530 Influenza/Pneumonia:34112 Kidney Failure: 23729 Infections to the Blood:18570 Suicide:20481 Drunk Driving:18760 Homicide:9322 Murder by Gun:6377 Texting while driving:3323 Pedestrian:2774 Fire Related:1942 Malnutrition:1538 Domestic Violence:810 Smoking in bed:432 Killed by falling tree: 83 Struck by Ligntning:45 Mass Shooting:21 Spontaneous Combustion: 0 Side: No, there is enough control
4
points
1
point
yea, even though he had a good backround, that guy was crazy. when the police found him, they asked what his name was. you want to know what the guy said? he said " im the joker!" WTH!?!?!?!?!?!?!? no lie, its written on the news report. he is insane! Side: No, there is enough control
Gun control is based in the idea that the state can limit our possession based on popular notions of when we don't "need." "You don't need a gun that big." Well, maybe not, but this isn't a society where we're awarded things according to our need (by others according to their ability). Has anybody ever needed a Hummer? Or, hell, who needs a house bigger than one floor, two or three bedrooms? Who needs to make more than a few hundred thousand dollars a year? Technically, nobody "needs" anything more than what's necessary to survive, and people can survive in some pretty rough conditions. If "need" is the threshold for "have," then nobody can have much of anything. Incidentally, this happened at the theater I went to all throughout childhood (I've since move to the other side of town), and one of the kids I went to elementary school with got killed. I guess that means I'm the most qualified to have an opinion! Good for me. Side: No, there is enough control
2
points
The mainstream media has ignored witness testimony of an accomplice who tossed a flair/smoke grenade from the opposite end of the cinema to the arrested man. Looks like he had an accomplice. Obama has made several statements about gun control in the past. Something tells me this arrested man is a patsy who has been framed for the shooting all in the name of gun control arguments. Why would the US gov do this you ask? Because they fear the US economy will eventually collapse, and an armed public will be much harder to control. Side: No, there is enough control
Nope, because the people who misuse guns the most are the ones who are already doing illegal things. Gun control won't do anything but make it more difficult for those who aren't doing anything wrong but want guns. Like me :( And that guy was so random... Side: No, there is enough control
1
point
No, there a tons of gun control laws and you can add a ton more but it won't solve anything. What disgusts me about this issue is that 12 people died and their families lives were ruined forever, but of course, people have to try and use this as leverage to support their view, have some respect. Side: No, there is enough control
Hell, no. There are insufficient brains out there to turn "the right to bear arms" around. So I say, let the carnage continue--compared to filthy lucre, lives aren't worth a pinch of you know what. The U.S. and its willing allies are committed to killing as its ubiquitous wars attest, so anyone who thinks the country's rulers think any more of its citizens' well being is just fooling himself. The irony is that what hurts the sheeple the most is what the sheeple support. If it weren't so heart wrenchingly sad, it would be belly shaking laughable. Side: No, there is enough control
Yeah let's talk more about how criminals follow the law. (; You could argue that with less control people could carry a concealed weapon and take these people out before they cause too much damage. I want to make that argument but realistically it wouldn't make that much of a difference. If that city in colorado allowed people to do whatever they want with guns it still would have went down the same way. It's unrealistic to think that John Wayne would have poped out of the audience and saved the day. Regardless of what laws of restriction or security or laws of allowance, it all comes down to the fact that if people want to kill people they can. There's always a way to kill. So weather you're for or against gun control you know deep down that it wont make much of a difference. Side: No, there is enough control
1
point
1
point
We don't need gun control, we need some bullet control. Bullets should cost $5000 each, so if a policeman finds a guy with 18 bullets in him, he'll know that he must've done something to deserve it. There will be no more school shootings or anything else, because people can't afford to pop Mr. Carmichael in the head. Side: No, there is enough control
Well i believe at a time when threatened it would be conviniant to have a gun in ur pocket. That said i do believe u should have a legal license for those things because that's when people start going crazy. Also there are other ways to protect yourself like self-defense classes, tazors, even small little pocket knifes can be handy sometimes! Side: No, there is enough control
1
point
If a person wants to shoot people that badly a few gun laws or more gun control is not going to stop them. It is all about the human mind and human nature. Laws are merely guidelines, which we can easily break at anytime. If we try to break one we are not going to be electrocuted by some imaginary zapper before we pull off the crime. We can break the laws anytime we choose to. Besides are criminals who break the law by killing people already going to follow more less serious laws then "though shall not kill"?? Side: No, there is enough control
I don't think blaming it on gun control is the answer to this issue. Let's say gun control is increased and he possibly could not get a gun. Would it have been any less horrifying if he went to the theater with a homemade explosive device? Caused a fire in the building causing people to stampede out of the theater trampling each other to get safe. (Horrifying imagery would you not say) If someone is determined to harm that the medium in which they employ becomes secondary to the mechanics of it. Restricting gun control will not prevent such things as this from happening. The difference between owning a gun for home defense and going on a rampage is the owner. You want to make sure the owner is mentally competent to own the weapon that is fine but just be prepared then for the next shooter to be described by his peers as friendly, never caused, and quiet. Wait, don't we hear that a lot of times already. Side: No, there is enough control
1
point
The Aurora shooting, while indeed a tragedy, is not sufficient reasoning for greater levels of gun control, as it falls under the fallacy of misleading vividness. The fact remains that a mass shooting like the incident in question is an exceptional event, an exceptional circumstance, one which leads to exceptional, or hastily generalized, conclusions. The hasty conclusion here is the position that gun control should be increased. Further, the idea of increasing gun control hinges on the concept that such a restriction of freedom is justified in the first place--which I maintain it is not. The mere act of owning a gun is not an immediate and active harm to someone else. According to, for example, the Non-Aggression Principle, such ownership is always allowed or justified, because it is not done in direct coercion, extortion, or deception, of another. Simply put: the violence is already restricted and deemed wrong. There is therefore no reason that the gun should be as well. Side: No, there is enough control
By no means am I trying to be insensitive, but I don't see why this particular event should cause any specific concern that the other thousands of gun homicides do. I do think the way he obtained the weapons and ammunition is a bit concerning. There shouldn't be easy online access to any kind of deadly weapon. This is really all that needs to be thought about following this tragedy, the Second Ammendment is not at fault here. Side: No, there is enough control
|
