A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (Locked down several times a year during the major championships)
jazzcyclist wrote:Some folks think its's because over the last several decades, American pop culture has come to sensationalize, and even romanticize violence in a way that it never did before. Others think that it's because it's become almost impossible to institutionize the mentally deranged without their consent and that nutjobs like the Colorado shooter would have been unable to hurt anyone 50 years ago because the would have already been commited to a mental institution. What's your theory Pego?
I simply do not know. I do not buy any of the above. Nutjobs have been around forever, they don't need to be "desensitized". I hate violence in pop culture, but do not see the link to mass murders.
I hated what we did in the 70s emptying asylums, but neither Tucson, nor Aurora killers would have been institutionalized prior to committing their atrocities even then from what I know.
I simply do not know, just as I have not been able to find a common denominator to suicide bombers either.
mump boy wrote:this has NOTHING to do with the point i was making !! which you have conveniently avoided commenting on
I addressed the gun issue along with many other freedoms. There's no doubt that the U.S. is freer than the U.K. when it comes to guns and I pray that we never adopt your gun control laws.
The freedom to get shot to death while watching Batman is one i will gladly do without !!
Anyone can play the semantics game. For example, in the U.K. you are free to be defenseless victims without the right to defend yourself. You see how easy that is. For every Colorado nutjob we have in the U.S., we also have heroes like this.
jhc68 wrote:I also have seen enough of life to absolutely reject the notion that we'd all be safer if everyone had guns. Even more bizarre is the ideology that we need weapons to fight our own government... that, to me, is adolescent fantasy.
You are exactly, precisely right: it is an adolescent fantasy. "Pure," high-minded, and very dangerously false.
Pego wrote:I simply do not know, just as I have not been able to find a common denominator to suicide bombers either.
Suicide bombers are pretty easy to understand IMO. They're really just politically-motivated perpetrators of violence, also know as terrorists, and as we both know that phenomenon has existed for centuries. I think the thing that Westerners can't understand is why someone would give their lives for a political cause. What difference does it make whether the IRA member detonates the car bomb by remote control and whether the Hamas member detonates the car bomb with him in it? I'm pretty sure it makes no difference to the victims. Dead is dead.
Vince wrote:Look up mass killings in Norway, Australia, Great Britain, Finland, Germany, Russia, Japan etc......it's not just a US problem and not all of them used guns.
The saddest of all...why don't you read my earlier post, which looks at just that. Yes, there have been massacres in other countries. I was in England when the school shooting at Dunblane, Scotland happened in 1996. But the difference, as noted, is they did something about them.
"In the United Kingdom in 2009 there were 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants; for comparison, the figure for the United States was 3.0, about 40 times higher"
Flumpy wrote:The reason we don't have lots of madmen shooting people in the UK is because we can't get hold of guns. It really is that simple.
This is an important fact that can't be overlooked. Even you seem to be implying that British criminals would have no problem using guns if they could get their hands on them. The problem is that in the U.S., there are already so many guns in circulation, that getting them off the street would be like trying to put tootpaste back in the tube. Furthermore, I've discussed with friends and co-workers what they would do with their guns if the Second Amendment was repealed and the government ordered them to turn in their guns, and not a single person said they would turn them in.
mump boy wrote:this has NOTHING to do with the point i was making !! which you have conveniently avoided commenting on
I addressed the gun issue along with many other freedoms. There's no doubt that the U.S. is freer than the U.K. when it comes to guns and I pray that we never adopt your gun control laws.
The freedom to get shot to death while watching Batman is one i will gladly do without !!
Anyone can play the semantics game. For example, in the U.K. you are free to be defenseless victims without the right to defend yourself. You see how easy that is. For every Colorado nutjob we have in the U.S., we also have heroes like this.
Flumpy wrote:The reason we don't have lots of madmen shooting people in the UK is because we can't get hold of guns. It really is that simple.
This is an important fact that can't be overlooked. Even you seem to be implying that British criminals would have no problem using guns if they could get their hands on them. The problem is that in the U.S., there are already so many guns in circulation, that getting them off the street would be like trying to put tootpaste back in the tube. Furthermore, I've discussed with friends and co-workers what they would do with their guns if the Second Amendment was repealed and the government ordered them to turn in their guns, and not a single person said they would turn them in.
Flumpy wrote:If people don't have guns, then they don't need guns to protect themselves against people with guns
Why is that so difficult to understand?
Why is it so hard for you to understand that with hundreds of millions of guns already circulation, there's no practical way to create a gun-free environment in the U.S.?
"In the United Kingdom in 2009 there were 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants; for comparison, the figure for the United States was 3.0, about 40 times higher"
So between just the two of us, we have over a dozen guns, and we aren't what most Americans would consider gun nuts. When you consider that there are over 300 million people in the nation, it's easy to see how difficult and problematic it would be to take the guns out of circulation.
the latest wrinkle (unless somebody mentioned it higher up and I missed it): he had a 100-round drum magazine but it jammed early. Imagine the death toll if he had been able to squeeze off that many rounds.
gh wrote:the latest wrinkle (unless somebody mentioned it higher up and I missed it): he had a 100-round drum magazine but it jammed early. Imagine the death toll if he had been able to squeeze off that many rounds.
jazzcyclist wrote: The discussion was about automatic weapons. The story that you linked has nothing to do with automatic weapons. Obviously, you don't know what an automatic weapon is.
One kills more people more quickly than the other one? Who shives a git! If the mexican cartels are happy to get our semi automatics and kill thousands of their people why are you nit picking the armaments of death.
jazzcyclist wrote: We live in an era in which the U.S. has the strictist gun control laws in our nation's history. The federal governmenmt has gradually chipped away at the Second Amendment with the passage of the the Gun Control Act (1968), the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act (1986) and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1994). So my question to you is why weren't incidents like the Colorado shooting happening 50 years ago, when gun control laws were a lot more lax than they are today?
As to tighter gun control laws you're being misleading. We have the loosest laws of any developed nation, and that is the issue. As to why more violence today than earlier? Numerous guesses: 1. Move to urban areas creates more violence. 2. Media has become more violence accepting. 3. Weapons have become deadlier. 4. NRA has amped up the paranoia of fear.
Others think that it's because it's become almost impossible to institutionize the mentally deranged without their consent and that nutjobs like the Colorado shooter would have been unable to hurt anyone 50 years ago because the would have already been commited to a mental institution. What's your theory Pego?
There has been no evidence that Holmes was insane and dangerous before Aurora. Quiet loners like him are everywhere.
gh wrote:the latest wrinkle (unless somebody mentioned it higher up and I missed it): he had a 100-round drum magazine but it jammed early. Imagine the death toll if he had been able to squeeze off that many rounds.
I think drum magazines should be banned because they're unreliable bulky. Furthermore, you can get 60 rounds with two 30-round banana clips tapes together and they're much more reliable, so why would anyone want to use one of those bulky things?
Last edited by jazzcyclist on Sun Jul 22, 2012 10:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
jazzcyclist wrote: The discussion was about automatic weapons. The story that you linked has nothing to do with automatic weapons. Obviously, you don't know what an automatic weapon is.
One kills more people more quickly than the other one? Who shives a git! If the mexican cartels are happy to get our semi automatics and kill thousands of their people why are you nit picking the armaments of death.
Because unless you're going to ban semi-automatic weapons, which many people that I know have hunted with for years, what's the point? The only difference between semi-automatic hunting rifles and so-called "assault rifles" that can be purchased at gun shops throughout the South is the physical appearance.
The argument that 100-round magazines ought to be legal because they are inherently unreliable doesn't make a lot of sense to me. And the argument that current gun laws are too strict put forth by a person who says he and his friends would flaunt laws they don't like anyway also seems like moot point. But, as stated previously, neither side of this issue will make sense to the other...
jazzcyclist wrote: We live in an era in which the U.S. has the strictist gun control laws in our nation's history. The federal governmenmt has gradually chipped away at the Second Amendment with the passage of the the Gun Control Act (1968), the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act (1986) and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1994). So my question to you is why weren't incidents like the Colorado shooting happening 50 years ago, when gun control laws were a lot more lax than they are today?
As to tighter gun control laws you're being misleading. We have the loosest laws of any developed nation, and that is the issue. As to why more violence today than earlier? Numerous guesses: 1. Move to urban areas creates more violence. 2. Media has become more violence accepting. 3. Weapons have become deadlier. 4. NRA has amped up the paranoia of fear.
When comparing the gun violence in the U.S. today to gun violence in the U.S. 50 years ago, other nation's laws are irrelevant. What matters is our laws today vs our laws 50 years ago.
As for your theories, #3 is false. There are many things that I could have bought 25 years ago that I can't buy today, and the reason I know this is because I bought some of them before the stricter laws went into effect. On the other hand, there's nothing significant that's available today that wasn't available 25 years ago. #4 makes no sense to me. Are you saying that the NRA's media campaign is making people more trigger happy? However, I do think #1 (urbanization of America) and #2 (media violence) seem very plausible. #2 has been discussed before, but I had never thought of #1 which makes a lot of sense.
jazzcyclist wrote: #4 makes no sense to me. Are you saying that the NRA's media campaign is making people more trigger happy? However, I do think #1 (urbanization of America) and #2 (media violence) seem very plausible. #2 has been discussed before, but I had never thought of #1 which makes a lot of sense.
The NRA went on a "drum up the paranoia" campaign when Obama was elected. There was a huge spike on gun buys after it. The message was clear: "He'll ban guns so buy more." The NRA has done more to encourage the growth of gun buying than any other group and done more to quash sensible weapons bans and restrictions. Whether you like it or not more available guns makes for more violence. States with stricter gun laws have less gun violence, it's a fact. And Alaska is #1. Why? My guess is they hunt a lot so when violence occurs they have ready access.
jazzcyclist wrote: #4 makes no sense to me. Are you saying that the NRA's media campaign is making people more trigger happy? However, I do think #1 (urbanization of America) and #2 (media violence) seem very plausible. #2 has been discussed before, but I had never thought of #1 which makes a lot of sense.
The NRA went on a "drum up the paranoia" campaign when Obama was elected. There was a huge spike on gun buys after it. The message was clear: "He'll ban guns so buy more." The NRA has done more to encourage the growth of gun buying than any other group and done more to quash sensible weapons bans and restrictions. Whether you like it or not more available guns makes for more violence. States with stricter gun laws have less gun violence, it's a fact. And Alaska is #1. Why? My guess is they hunt a lot so when violence occurs they have ready access.
What??? California has stricter gun laws and is in no way less violent.
jazzcyclist wrote: #4 makes no sense to me. Are you saying that the NRA's media campaign is making people more trigger happy? However, I do think #1 (urbanization of America) and #2 (media violence) seem very plausible. #2 has been discussed before, but I had never thought of #1 which makes a lot of sense.
The NRA went on a "drum up the paranoia" campaign when Obama was elected. There was a huge spike on gun buys after it. The message was clear: "He'll ban guns so buy more." The NRA has done more to encourage the growth of gun buying than any other group and done more to quash sensible weapons bans and restrictions.
There's no doubt that the NRA has promoted gun ownership, but I don't think increased gun sales makes people more trigger happy than they already were.
jeremyp wrote:States with stricter gun laws have less gun violence, it's a fact. And Alaska is #1.
Link please?
I thought that gun violence in cities like Newark, D.C., Los Angeles and Chicago was on par with gun violance in cities like Dallas, Phoenix, Atlanta and Miami.
I'm hijacking my thread back. If you want a gun-control thread, please start one yourself, I'm sick of the gun apologetics.
The major studios are not releasing numbers this week, but inside sources say that even though DKR ticket sales may be down 20% because of the tragedy, it'll still approach record levels nearing $200M. Nolan and Bale quoted as saying they aren't even interested in discussing the movie, which given all the great creative work that went into it, is too bad and will forever cast a pall over its achievement.
Vince wrote:Stop avoiding the point that common items can cause mass murder even if you banned all guns.
That's a complete distraction to the issue at hand. Anything can be used to kill someone, if the murderer is motivated enough. BUT there is only ONE weapon that can be used on the spur of the moment to kill someone *instantaneously* before giving them a chance to react (without taking out the person using it). And all you have to do it point it at them, and you don't even have to be near them to do it. Most explosives, chemical, biological, or even radiological weapons can't do that.
Vince wrote:A little perspective, number of murders in the US in 2010 approx. 16000. and 60% to 70% caused by firearms. Deaths by Motor Vehicles in 2010 were approx 33000 in the US..... suicides in the US in 2009 were approx. 37000.
60% to 70% is an overwhelming majority, so you've undermined your entire argument with that statistic. As for the other numbers, they are irrelevant comparisons.
jhc68 wrote:... the rebels would be decimated by weaponry so sophisticated and deadly that it is literally beyond the comprehension of most Americans.
Precisely. If there are any who still adhere to the idea that they can defend themselves against the government with their guns, they are sorely mistaken. Osama Bin Laden had a house full of guns and bodyguards. Taking on a federal army isn't going to be "Red Dawn."
Marlow wrote:I'm hijacking my thread back.
To respect Marlow's wishes, perhaps the powers above can split this thread starting with guru's post on the first page. (PS: I'll be seeing the movie on Wednesday, and am very much looking forward to it).
Last edited by JRM on Sun Jul 22, 2012 2:15 pm, edited 3 times in total.
mump boy wrote:this has NOTHING to do with the point i was making !! which you have conveniently avoided commenting on
I addressed the gun issue along with many other freedoms. There's no doubt that the U.S. is freer than the U.K. when it comes to guns and I pray that we never adopt your gun control laws.
The freedom to get shot to death while watching Batman is one i will gladly do without !!
Anyone can play the semantics game. For example, in the U.K. you are free to be defenseless victims without the right to defend yourself. You see how easy that is. For every Colorado nutjob we have in the U.S., we also have heroes like this.
mump boy wrote:We don't have the need to defend ourselves because we have very few murders, because we have very few guns.
You don't have many gun crimes but you still have murders.
Yea, but the numbers are infinitesimal compared to the US.
The number of murders and killings in England and Wales has fallen to the lowest level in nearly 30 years, Office for National Statistics figures show.
Police recorded 550 homicides in 2011-12, 88 fewer than the previous year and the lowest number since 1983.
By the way, it didn't take long to blame the victims.
Former Arizona State Sen. Russell Pearce wrote a missive Saturday highlighting the collective failure of the victims of the Aurora, Colo. massacre to stop the shooter who left 12 people dead and nearly 60 wounded in a movie theater.
The outspoken conservative — known for his ardent pro-gun and anti-illegal-immigration views — later sought to clarify that he was merely blaming gun control laws.
Early Saturday morning, the former Republican lawmaker took to Facebook to mourn the victims. He then wondered why none were “[b]rave” enough to stop the atrocity.
“Where were the men of flight 93???? Someone should have stopped this man,” he wrote. “…All that was needed is one Courages/Brave man prepared mentally or otherwise to stop this it could have been done.”
