"Batman Massacre"

[HYHYBT]

Well that will just lead to people calling for Emergency exits to be alarmed up the wazoo and only be openable from the inside of course. Granted that's a small 'price' to pay and I wouldn't mind that at all, considering in a lot of retail stores and other public buildings the emergency exits are just like that.

I've known theaters, when they're particularly busy, to have audiences leave through those doors anyway rather than going back through the lobby. An alarm sure would be a nuisance… and wouldn't have done a lot of good anyway. It also might tend to panic an audience when it goes off for nothing more serious than someone who didn't like the movie leaving the wrong way.

The joker had green hair, clown makeup, and was nuts.

I seem to remember that that last characteristic, at least, he does share with the Riddler.

With the overboard measures they take after things like this it lulls people into a false sense of security so that when something does go horribly wrong people don't realize it is doing so until it's too late having ignored every sign that something was very wrong since you know it's safe.

Just the opposite: having to jump through nearly-useless security nuisances gives the impression that such events are likely, making them more fearful than there is rational cause to be. Which doesn't make them any more likely to handle it well if something does happen; it just means that everyone gets less enjoyment out of normal life, and that many are easier to manipulate because they're kept afraid.

1) Something must be done.
2) This is something.
3) Therefore, it must be done.

Problem is, number 2 is the pet project of the person making the decision. You can always pick it by asking yourself if the ban had been in place beforehand, if the original incident would still have taken place.

Good list. Not quite always, though: the same works if Something *would* have happened to prevent Current Tragedy (or at least forced it to happen another way) but would only do so in a way that's too specific to be useful in most cases.

[Beckpatton]

First off "assault rifle" is a term coined by the anti-gun lobby, and latched onto by the media, it is an essentially meaningless term, but words are powerful, and they can be used to control, usually through fear.

Not being an expert on guns, I guess when I use the term assault rifle, I mean a gun of similar style to those used in the military, that are capable of holding large quantities of ammo. My biggest issue being the large amount of ammo.

I know there are handguns out there that can hold a fair bit of ammo as well, but what I'm saying is why is it necessary from a protection stand point? Why is it available? I would think that the only person interested in something like that is looking to do a lot of damage.

People want a choice of guns for either home protection or hunting or both, but why do either of those require a gun that can hold a ridiculous amount of bullets?

I also read that he purchased the guns legally, but went to different states to buy them to avoid detection. I would suggest (if it's not in place already, but I'm assuming not or he would have been caught out) that there be a nationwide gun registry, so the ATF can keep track of who's buying what guns, and what ammo, and allow for red flags to go up. But then people would just complain about Big Brother, and why should the government be allowed to keep track of what we're doing etc. My answer is THIS is why! It sucks that because of the actions of a few, the rest have to suffer, (and really if you're not doing anything wrong why should you care if the ATF want to ask you about your guns). But if it means saving lives down the line, then why not?

Some people don't want this incident to become all about gun control, but how can it not? There is obviously something wrong that these things keep happening, something needs to be done. We in Australia are not perfect, we have had our fair share of mass shootings, where someone snapped and went on a murder spree. The last one was Port Arthur, that was in 1996. There hasn't been one since. Sure there might be shoot outs between bikie gangs etc, but they're not an everyday occurance, and they're shooting at each other. But since our laws changed after Port Arthur, we haven't had any incidents of nutjobs going on killing sprees, and hopefully we never will again.

Like I've said I don't expect America to give up her guns, I'm not that naive. But I think certainly some kind of guns, and gun accessories should be banned.

[BlaqueKatt]

Not being an expert on guns, I guess when I use the term assault rifle, I mean a gun of similar style to those used in the military, that are capable of holding large quantities of ammo. My biggest issue being the large amount of ammo.<snip>
People want a choice of guns for either home protection or hunting or both, but why do either of those require a gun that can hold a ridiculous amount of bullets?

the firearms as purchased from the manufacturer cannot hold a "ridiculous amount of ammunition", those are aftermarket clips, and as a firearm owner, I agree they should not be legal outside a firing range(meaning a firing range can own and provide them for usage in the range, but they should not be available to private persons. My personal firearm holds 14+1, and unless I'm at the range is never at capacity.

But if it means saving lives down the line, then why not?

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin.

this is the same argument given for the TSA's "security theatre", and the main issue is lists of registered legally purchased firearms were used to seize said firearms by the police after hurricane Katrina(and the legal owners had to fight for years in court for the return of their legally owned property), for no reason, these people had committed no crimes, one of them was an 80 year old woman, and the seized firearm was her grandfathers non functioning revolver(it was an heirloom only), they have also been used in other countries by other groups to disarm those they considered "undesirable".

[insertNameHere]

if you're not doing anything wrong why should you care if the ATF want to ask you about your guns

Because I have rights and freedom, including not needing to be searched or interrogated at the whims of those who might not like what I posses. People would also freak out knowing I prefer to exercise my right to not have my vehicle searched during traffic stops because there is no need to have someone snooping around my vehicle. I really hate security theater that wastes time instead of actually being useful against crimes.

As BlaqueKatt, with registered firearms it makes it easy to confiscate them illegally and make it difficult for the legal owner to get them back. More legislation won't prevent this type of event from happening, as the shooter clearly planned his method of attack, limiting magazine capacities would do little to stop him.

[Andara Bledin]

It sucks that because of the actions of a few, the rest have to suffer, (and really if you're not doing anything wrong why should you care if the ATF want to ask you about your guns). But if it means saving lives down the line, then why not?

If you're not doing anything wrong, then you don't mind being searched, right?

If you're not doing anything wrong, then you don't mind having government-controlled spyware on your computer, right?

If you're not doing anything wrong, then you don't mind the government having a GPS chip embedded in your arm, right?

All of those would result in saved lives and none of those are even remotely acceptable for the same reason a national gun registry isn't acceptable to a free nation.

^-.-^

[bara]

Yes and back when the 2nd amendment was written that was a possibility. Do people really think in this day and age that the US will ever need to "declare war on it's government and overthrow it" isn't that what elections are for?

I hope not, but 'We the people' need to be able to do so should that need ever arise.

[Nekojin]

Quick, beckpatton, which one of these is the Assault Rifle:



Trick question: They're both the same rifle, the Ruger Mini-14. The only thing that's changed is cosmetic crap - a wood finish instead of a black metal/plastic finish.

Both are semi-automatic magazine-fed rifles. They fire the same type of ammunition, at the same rate.

[draco664]

But then people would just complain about Big Brother, and why should the government be allowed to keep track of what we're doing etc. My answer is THIS is why!

Ah. I remember having that level of naive optimism. Good times.

But then I started kindergarten.

It sucks that because of the actions of a few, the rest have to suffer, (and really if you're not doing anything wrong why should you care if the ATF want to ask you about your guns). But if it means saving lives down the line, then why not?

Man, it's been literally hours since someone rolled out the old - if you're doing nothing wrong, you've got nothing to fear - spiel. And it's just as wrong then as it is now.

And it all comes down to one thing. Power.

You are essentially giving someone else power over you. And you somehow assume that that person won't abuse the new-found power. And that their all of their successors won't either.

Or that the next government, made up of people on the other side of politics, won't abuse it either. Or that the scheme won't be extended beyond its original remit.

You somehow have to believe that data collected won't be sold by people who have access to it.
You somehow have to believe that civil servants who live next door to you won't breach your privacy by looking you up in their databases.
You somehow have to believe that a politician won't break a solemn promise just for a short term gain.


Here's the rub with that. It's really, really fucking easy to change the rules once the scheme is in place to make anything 'wrong'.

Let me give you a nice example. After the 7/7 terrorist bombing in London, new laws were passed that were ostensibly meant for anti-terror policing. Sounds good, right? No one could complain about that, right?

Well, the laws ended up being used for just about anything but terror investigations. People not picking up dog poop, for instance.

So seriously, don't sit there and spout rubbish. People in power want more power. They will abuse the emotive reactions to tragedies to get more power. And the power they get will be orders of magnitude harder to take away than it was to get.

[Beckpatton]

Quick, beckpatton, which one of these is the Assault Rifle:



Trick question: They're both the same rifle, the Ruger Mini-14. The only thing that's changed is cosmetic crap - a wood finish instead of a black metal/plastic finish.

Both are semi-automatic magazine-fed rifles. They fire the same type of ammunition, at the same rate.

I don't see your point. I would have thought both were assault rifles just by looking at them. Was I supposed to think that because one is wooden it is "safer" than the black one? Sorry but no.

If you're not doing anything wrong, then you don't mind being searched, right?

Right!

If you're not doing anything wrong, then you don't mind having government-controlled spyware on your computer, right?

I don't see why this would be necessary. They can monitor internet usage allowing for red flags to go off, without having to monitor my personal computer.

If you're not doing anything wrong, then you don't mind the government having a GPS chip embedded in your arm, right?

Actually I really wouldn't! Obviously it isn't something that should ever be mandatory but if it was something you could volunteer for I would consider it. Especially if I was getting older and becoming senile. It would be something I would plan ahead for.

All of those would result in saved lives and none of those are even remotely acceptable for the same reason a national gun registry isn't acceptable to a free nation.

Ok so I can understand why some people are against a national registry. You've all made very good points. But I myself wouldn't have a problem with it. If someone in my neighbourhood was suddenly stockpiling guns and ammo I would want someone to ask them why.
^-.-^

More legislation won't prevent this type of event from happening, as the shooter clearly planned his method of attack, limiting magazine capacities would do little to stop him.

Stop him, no. Slow him down, perhaps reduce the amount of carnage, give someone a chance to take him out somehow, yes.

So seriously, don't sit there and spout rubbish.

I didn't realise I was. I thought I was sharing my opinion, just like everyone else here. I could just as easily say that most of these replies to me have been paranoid rubbish, but I respect the fact that these are your opinions, and I'm enjoying hearing them. Gives me something to think about.

[Hyena Dandy]

If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to fear...


Hey, I remember that from a Pet Shop Boys song.

How does the next part of it go?

"We're concerned... You're a threat... You're not integral to the project."

.
.
.
.
.

Essentially, the point is that if we could actually TRUST the government, there'd be no problem with total surveillance. An all-benevolent government, a dictatorship (it would have to be) led by some sort of immortal... Yeah, I could give them 100% control of everything.

But, well, Princess Celestia doesn't exist. So until she does... I'm going to go with "fuck surveillance."

The police, and the government, are made up of people. People are not perfect. People are prone to abusing power. A police state would be fucking perfect if it weren't for all the damn people involved in running it.

[Nyoibo]

w
First off "assault rifle" is a term coined by the anti-gun lobby, and latched onto by the media, it is an essentially meaningless term, but words are powerful, and they can be used to control, usually through fear.

Actually assaul rifle is a translation of the german word sturmgewehr which was a term coined by Hitler to describe the Maschinenpistole 43 one of the first automatic rifles, the anti-gun lobby had nothing to do with it.

[Skelly]

Yes and back when the 2nd amendment was written that was a possibility.

It still is. A bunch of tired & half starved Jews in the Warzaw ghetto held off the Wehrmacht. The rebels in Syria are fucking over the government quite badly in some ways. The rebels in Libya won against their own government. Sure, they had help from NATO, but they could've won without I think. But do tell me how it's impossible for the population to win in an uprising against their own government.

Do people really think in this day and age that the US will ever need to "declare war on it's government and overthrow it" isn't that what elections are for?

"Isn't that what elections are for?", oh, how cute, you have total faith in government being the eternal good guys.

So again I ask, why the need for assault rifles. You want to protect yourself fine, but a 100 round magazine assault rifle is for murder pure and simple not protection.

Your armed forces have assault rifles. I'm guessing your police force have them as well, or atleast the SWAT teams or whatever you call them. Are they out to murder people as well? Tell you what, I'll accept restrictions on magazine capacity when the same restrictions apply to police and military as well.
As for a reason for having large capacity magazines, ever heard of the Rodney King riots? Korean shop owner took to the rooftops to defend their neighborhoods from rioting scum. If the police is unable or unwilling to defend you against rioters and arsonists, you're fully prepared to deal with it yourself.

and yes if the guns weren't available he could have tried other means like a bomb, but for all we know he could have blown himself up in the process, and 12 people would still be alive.

The fact that he managed to booby trap his apartment with explosives shows that he could've made a bomb just as easily. Or a flamethrower for that matter, even simpler. Explosives are mature technology, real, accurate step-by-step instructions are out there for anyone to follow, it's not alchemy or uncharted territory you're dealing with. Any old fool can mix up plastic explosives or dynamite. Blackpowder is even easier

If he'd used a truck to run everyone over, no one would be calling for the eradication of trucks. That is not their purpose. A trucks job is to carry people and cargo from one location to another.

An assault rifle's ONLY job is to kill!

No, an assault rifle's (and any other firearm's) job is to fire a metal projectile with high speed and great accuracy at what you're aiming at, whether it's tasty and delicious animals, paper targets, deranged crackheads who are breaking down your door, or for that matter jack-booted thugs should the need arise. Incidentally, I've never heard anyone of the usual suspects who calls for gun control calling for the government to give up their sniper rifles, despite that Lon Houriochi of the FBI used his to shoot an unarmed woman in the head at Ruby Ridge.

[siead_lietrathua]

man, and i was hoping it wouldnt have turned into a gun control argument.
BUT say gun control laws were in place before this instance...
the guy found a way to either make or buy teargas.
the guy had found a way to make or buy bombs.
it's easy to belive he would have bought a black-market assault rifle if they wern't legal to buy at market.
OR he would have went in there with a gun to the highest-rounds legal, and pre-loaded clips jammed in his belt. sure it might have slowed him down to reload, but it also means he would have been making his shots count, rather than spraying into the crowd at random. and i'm sorry but 30 bullet firings with, say, 5 second reload breaks in the hands of someone properly aiming can be as dangerous as random spray of 100 bullets. that's only 4 reloads after all. not too big of a time diffence.

[Andara Bledin]

man, and i was hoping it wouldnt have turned into a gun control argument.

It always turns into a gun control argument.

It's far easier to point to guns and go "That's the problem," then to take a long hard look at what it takes for a person to go down that path without a single person noticing or caring until after they've done something horrific.

Guns are a convenient demon. And, honestly, a complete cop-out embraced by innocents, fools, and people who are pushing an agenda.

^-.-^

[Mytical]

The youngest victim was 6 years old. 6 years..I just don't get it. What in what passes for a mind of this animal could justify shooting a 6 year old. Now, don't get me wrong, each and every death is a tragedy..and I can't comprehend what would cause a person to kill anybody in such a manner..but 6 years old. You know that old expression "Stop the world cause I want to get off?" That doesn't seem enough for this. "Stop the world, dismantle it, and pack it up..I want to get off." is more like it.

Sorry, but I got to ask. Why on earth are we arguing about gun control, when the focus should be on the victims of this senseless act?