[Ray9]

	Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The police are not defenders of ethics. They shoot people because they've been ordered to.

That's one reason. Another being they don't want to get shot first.

[stasis]

	Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	they don't want to get shot first

while carrying out their orders.

(it's the same reason)

[thod]

	These are not the type of people whom you can scare off with a gun.

If I allow you to intimidate me, I will be your bitch. If I can intimidate you, then you will be mine. A brave man dies but once, a coward many times, and all that.

[kookoonuts]

	Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If I allow you to intimidate me, I will be your bitch.

Sounds kinky.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[IslandHead]

	Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	while carrying out their orders. (it's the same reason)

That is different. Not the same reason.

A police officer shooting someone to defend himself/herself =/= being commanded to kill someone

[Straylight]

	Originally Posted by kookoonuts To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Regarding Starlight's numbers. I'm curious how many of those deaths were inflicted legally, how many were inflicted with unregistered weapons, and (more importantly) what percentage of the population and what percentage of deaths (excluding natural causes) are represented by each number.

Starlight's eh?. I guess this is me
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. Those numbers are very general approximations, every page I went to said something slightly different, probably referring to different years. But roughly 10 - 15'000 per year are gun homicides. I would guess the % which were legal police shootings were pretty low. No idea about what % were by unregistered weapons. I think about 70 or 80% of US murders are caused by guns. Here's a
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
of US gun deaths for 2004.

[Typhon]

Gun control topics always arise when occurrences like this pop up. Just another form of reactionary thinking. Not terribly phased by this tragic event myself, and I think I'm going to just go ahead and keep my firearms. The crime rate has been
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
, so events like this are not representative of crime in the US. Additionally
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
to convince me that gun control actually lowers crime, and that
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
is actually a good thing.

[stasis]

	Originally Posted by IslandHead To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That is different. Not the same reason. A police officer shooting someone to defend himself/herself =/= being commanded to kill someone

A police officer who shoots someone he finds threatening while serving a search warrant is shooting someone in his attempt to carry out those orders. The entire scenario results from command and these actions are encompassed by that command. The license police have to shoot people differs from the license civilians have to shoot people insofar as the police are following state's orders when they shoot. The shooting is authorized.

[zibber]

Imagine, one day, public discourse on this subject not mostly being about how guns should be legislated, but more about how we can actually work towards modes of living together where significant numbers of people don't want to shoot each other.

[stasis]

Imagine, one day, tumbling around in the soft green grass, hugging a plushie bear under the sugary rain of skittles and unicorns and rainbow sparklets galore.

[kookoonuts]

	Originally Posted by Straylight To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Starlight's eh?. I guess this is me To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. .

I'd like to blame autocorrect, but I really just got it wrong. Maybe I just associate wishing upon stars at night with you?

[Straylight]

Originally Posted by Typhon To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Gun control topics always arise when occurrences like this pop up. Just another form of reactionary thinking. Not terribly phased by this tragic event myself, and I think I'm going to just go ahead and keep my firearms. The crime rate has been To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. , so events like this are not representative of crime in the US. Additionally To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. to convince me that gun control actually lowers crime, and that To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. is actually a good thing.

Whaaaat! according to that article I'd be better off moving to Helmand than staying in the UK. It's not that bad, I've rarely seen violent crime and I've lived in Tottenham N.London. btw the crime table in that article was produced 9 months before a general election by the conservative party who had been out of power for 18 years. Me thinks, they had a vested interest in juicying up those stats. FYI - They got in this time - probably because they scared everyone shitless.
Thats not to say England hasn't got a certain problem with the saturday night piss up and resulting punch up. But I'd take that over these gun death figures; USA: 9,369 - UK: 14 *2002

[kookoonuts]

	Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Imagine, one day, tumbling around in the soft green grass, hugging a plushie bear under the sugary rain of skittles and unicorns and rainbow sparklets galore.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Badger]

Show your integrity: If you don't believe in owning guns, put a sign in your front window stating such. Go ahead and let the neighborhood know you don't have a gun. I live in a small quiet town with a wife and kids. There is no way in hell I would feel safe doing that. I would be a negligent protector/husband. I would have no problem telling people I own a gun.

[Typhon]

Originally Posted by Straylight To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Whaaaat! according to that article I'd be better off moving to Helmand than staying in the UK. It's not that bad, I've rarely seen violent crime and I've lived in Tottenham N.London. btw the crime table in that article was produced 9 months before a general election by the conservative party who had been out of power for 18 years. Me thinks, they had a vested interest in juicying up those stats. FYI - They got in this time - probably because they scared everyone shitless. Thats not to say England hasn't got a certain problem with the saturday night piss up and resulting punch up. But I'd take that over these gun death figures; USA: 9,369 - UK: 14 *2002

Mayhaps it is a manipulation by politicians but if I had to live in the place I felt safest, it would be in the US instead of the UK. Especially in regards to defending myself against would be knife-assailants, regardless of whether or not I used a firearm.

[Backslash]

If you make guns illegal, people will buy them from criminals, then guns will almost only be bought psychopaths.

[Endeavor]

The lack of competency on this issue is baffling. Out of all the posts in this topic the word psychopath is only mentioned once. You can't address anything about gun control unless you first address the real problem, psychopaths.

How does a psychopath function? How are their brains different? Can they be treated? What kinds of psychopaths exist? How do you identify a psychopath? Can a psychopath be deterred from legally purchasing firearms?

The last question is the meat of what needs to be discussed, BUT it does require some understanding about psychopathology (i.e. knowing answers to preceding questions). And, given how very few people know anything about psychopaths, the process is stifled.

The key is to design a gun law that aptly filters the population so that only healthy minded people have legal access to guns. However, this will require a joint effort between lawmakers and specialists in psychopathy. It won't be easy. My opinion is that this collaboration is unlikely.

Why? 1# Because society as a whole likes to live in denial of such people. That's why you have a thread titled "Gun massacres and gun rights" instead of "Gun massacres and psychopaths."

#2 Money. Lawmakers love their money, so do gun shop owners. Even the most ideal scientifically mended solution will be discarded if it gets in the way of lawmakers' money (through NRA campaign contributions) or gun shop owners (who lose their psychopath revenue). The latter is obviously speculation, but it's undeniable that revenue will be lost when psychopaths are excluded. It is likely frugal gun shop owners will oppose.

[kookoonuts]

Originally Posted by Endeavor To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The lack of competency on this issue is baffling. Out of all the posts in this topic the word psychopath is only mentioned once. You can't address anything about gun control unless you first address the real problem, psychopaths. How does a psychopath function? How are their brains different? Can they be treated? What kinds of psychopaths exist? How do you identify a psychopath? Can a psychopath be deterred from legally purchasing firearms? The last question is the meat of what needs to be discussed, BUT it does require some understanding about psychopathology (i.e. knowing answers to preceding questions). And, given how very few people know anything about psychopaths, the process is stifled. The key is to design a gun law that aptly filters the population so that only healthy minded people have legal access to guns. However, this will require a joint effort between lawmakers and specialists in psychopathy. It won't be easy. My opinion is that this collaboration is unlikely. Why? 1# Because society as a whole likes to live in denial of such people. That's why you have a thread titled "Gun massacres and gun rights" instead of "Gun massacres and psychopaths." #2 Money. Lawmakers love their money, so do gun shop owners. Even the most ideal scientifically mended solution will be discarded if it gets in the way of lawmakers' money (through NRA campaign contributions) or gun shop owners (who lose their psychopath revenue). The latter is obviously speculation, but it's undeniable that revenue will be lost when psychopaths are excluded. It is likely frugal gun shop owners will oppose.

#3 Many of those who have gone off on shooting sprees did not exhibit psychological disorders.

[Monte314]

Why is the knee-jerk reaction to an occurrence like this always to restrict the rights of those who obey the law?

If there had been a couple of folks in that theatre with CWP's, that guy would have gotten a few rounds off and then taken a couple in the face. This happens a few times, and the bad guys are going to begin realize that this sort of gambit offers no margin. It's because they know that they can mow down a crowd unopposed that these guys see this as a way to get famous... and that it almost always part of what underlies this kind of attack: "If I get enough kills, I'll be as famous as ____". If they know there is a possibility of them getting their heads blown off shortly after opening fire, they'll realize that getting a large "kill count" is problematic.

Banning 100-round magazines will accomplish nothing. But having a couple of unidentified citizens in the crowd with Glock 21's will balance that magazine right out, and is a lot more likely to dissuade a perp than restricting him to 15 or 20-shot clips.

Does the military use 100-round magazines on rifles? No, and for good reason. I can drop a new 10-round clip into a Glock in about 3 seconds. If the crowd is unarmed anyway, what have I lost? Also, a 100-round magazine is very heavy, making it quite difficult to aim carefully; further, they are more likely to jam than normal clips. Finally, a 100-round magazine makes a nice big, one-shot-and-you-are-disarmed target. You are probably BETTER OFF facing a foe with one heavy, single-point-of-failure than many small, lightweight clips.

[Endeavor]

	Originally Posted by kookoonuts To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	#3 Many of those who have gone off on shooting sprees did not exhibit psychological disorders.

Want to know why?

Psychopathy is not listed in the Psychology Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) as an official disorder. The DSM only lists Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD), which is not the same as Psychopathy.

ASPD is dependent on observable behavioral patterns, whereas Psychopathy is based on a combination of behavior and personal characteristics including emotional affect, fearlessness, egocentricity, etc.

But why this distinction between the two? And why even consider Psychopathy? Well, way back when psychologists were studying these "psychopathic" individuals and trying to develop diagnostic methods, there grew a rift between two factions.

One side believed it was impossible to diagnose the personal characteristics of the disorder, while the others believed focusing only on the behavioral actions was incomplete. Those compiling the DSM tried to make a concession to both sides, but unfortunately ended up selling short on Psychopathy. Hence you only have a diagnosis when someone on a shooting spree has a pattern of criminal behavior. You're welcome.

[Aronnax]

	Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If there had been a couple of folks in that theatre with CWP's, that guy would have gotten a few rounds off and then taken a couple in the face....

I doubt it. They'd be trying to shoot panicked, in dark crowded room, with a face full of tear gas against a man who isn't dealing with tear gas (gas mask), armed with an AR-15 and wearing body armor. Half blind, trying to pick a head shot using a pistol (assuming they knew they had to make a head shot rather than operate off the trained double tap to the chest), with innocents all over the place, against a guy armed with a rifle who doesn't care about collateral damage and can see your silhouette back-lit by the projector... I don't see a few concealed weapons making much of a difference here in terms of outcome.

I don't see firearm restrictions making much of a difference either though. This was well planned, he was clever enough to make use of tools to turn that theater into a deathtrap. If those tools hadn't been available there are several other ways for a lone attacker to kill that many people in a room with heavy doors and no windows.

[Thrushbeard]

A few years back (in Canada), there was severe a accident that killed 7 students of a basketball team. There was a winter storm that night when the van carrying the basketball team veered across the center line and hit a semi truck, eight out of the twelve people in that van were killed. Soon after this incident, schools across Canada began getting rid of these large vans which were widely used for sporting games and activities and replacing them with more expensive mini buses. People nationwide assumed that the vehicles were completely unsafe without knowing or even caring that the collision was completely and utterly preventable. Investigators revealed that six of the dead were not wearing seat-belts, that the tires were worn out all-seasons, that the brakes were faulty and that there could have been driver fatigue. Little did the public care that it was the lack of maintenance and improper handling of the van that lead to the incident and not the van itself.

The act of outright banning gun ownership after a severe gun massacre is extreme and would be very similar in reaction to the incident I mentioned above. When we go out to any public area or popular center, we accept the risk of injury or death from any means. After an incident like the one in Colorado or in any shooting, people often have the wrong reactions. Instead of banning, people should be asking for increased regulation when it comes to gun ownership.

There should be permits for gun ownership that require screening of the potential owners history, location and mental health. There should also be a national inventory (log) available to law enforcement on gun ownership. After the potential gun owner is cleared they should then be forced to attend a mandatory weapons training course. This may sound invasive to many, but it is necessary to achieve better security while not removing any constitutional rights.

The best way to prevent security threats is to inform rather than to eliminate freedoms.
Just my $0.02

[kookoonuts]

Originally Posted by Thrushbeard To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The act of outright banning gun ownership after a severe gun massacre is extreme and would be very similar in reaction to the incident I mentioned above. When we go out to any public area or popular center, we accept the risk of injury or death from any means. After an incident like the one in Colorado or in any shooting, people often have the wrong reactions. Instead of banning, people should be asking for increased regulation when it comes to gun ownership. There should be permits for gun ownership that require screening of the potential owners history, location and mental health. There should also be a national inventory (log) available to law enforcement on gun ownership. After the potential gun owner is cleared they should then be forced to attend a mandatory weapons training course. This may sound invasive to many, but it is necessary to achieve better security while not removing any constitutional rights. The best way to prevent security threats is to inform rather than to eliminate freedoms. Just my $0.02

Holmes would have passed all of that screening.

---------- Post added 07-21-2012 at 09:11 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Endeavor To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Want to know why?

The summary is psychology is a soft science that struggles to gain credibility when predicted results are not as concrete as those measured by studies conducted by physicists and chemists. The various associations can't agree, because correllated data does not determine causation, and the brain is too complicated to study without violating ethical standards of research.

I knew this well in advance, but thanks for the history lesson.

[eagleseven]

	Originally Posted by Thrushbeard To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	There should be permits for gun ownership that require screening of the potential owners history, location and mental health.

The guy was a neuroscience grad student and had a single traffic ticket on his record. AKA a model citizen, no different from the introverts on INTJf, until he decided to murder dozens of people.

	Originally Posted by Thrushbeard To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	After the potential gun owner is cleared they should then be forced to attend a mandatory weapons training course.

I'd say that the perp was well-schooled in the maintenance and use of firearms, along with explosives and trap-setting. If he didn't have access to guns, he'd have used the homemade bombs he stockpiled in his apartment to do far greater harm.

	Originally Posted by Thrushbeard To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The best way to prevent security threats is to inform rather than to eliminate freedoms.

The perp didn't make over a dozen homemade bombs, launch teargas, and start gunning people down precisely during a movie firefight out of ignorance.

[bawb]

Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A hunter never needs more than a single bullet. If he hasn't got the shot, he won't shoot. If he misses, the game flees. A single bullet still offers a deterrent to anyone contemplating attacking another. It is the automatic weapons that cause the problems. A single shooter can go in and kill a whole lot of people in a very short time. They are only desired by those who foresee zombie apocalypses where they will be mowing down hordes of government troops coming to raise their taxes.

You obviously do know much about guns, so it's hard to put any value in what you say.

Can you name ANY time

	the automatic weapons that cause the problems

in the United States?