1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Police: 13 dead; 58 injured in Colorado theater shooting

Discussion in 'The OT' started by Unknown, Jul 20, 2012.

  1. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    46,195
    1,074
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    I prefer reality ... less chance of error. (Does the comic book ever go back and say the swift justice was an incorrect judgement?)

    What would you do if the robber lost their hand and was later proved innocent? Say oops?

    We also have the concept of not allowing cruel or unusual punishments. If one is going to defend the 2nd amendment one might as well defend the 8th. :)
     
  2. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,626
    391
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    The license shouldn't be free. It could either be paid directly by the person applying OR I suppose one could figure out a way to pay for it in the tax code.

    Completely different topic and argument. Voting should be free. People should not have to pay to vote. We are supposed to be a "government by the people, of the people, and for the people" so that should be literally a freedom to vote.

    There are lots of people who don't drink (I don't) or who don't drive (people in big cities who use public transportation to get around) and don't travel (I don't) who don't otherwise need a form of photo ID for most of their lives... and again, voting is something that should be free.

    Different topic altogether.

    How so?

    In your example... the person who can't afford the training.... how are they going to afford their gun? or the bullets? This i like the people who demanded the free converter boxes for digital TV because "old people and poor people can't afford it" and completely ignored that to use the converter box, that same old/poor person would need a TV, an antenna, and electricity... nobody cared how they were going to pay for those things... only that converter box!

    IF you can afford a gun and bullets, you should be able to afford some training. IF you can't afford the training, how are you going to learn how to properly use it?

    First, if such a requirement were to pass, then there would be a market for the training... and a business or three would rise up around that need to meet the demand.

    Second... without those places to shoot... again I ask, how is that person going to learn how to use their gun? We don't want people just to have guns that they don't ever fire or know how to use properly, do we? That's dangerous.

    You, like many, are confusing rights with guarantees. We are also granted the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"... but those are not guarantees are they?

    You have the right to bear arms... you are not guaranteed them! You have to work, earn money, and either buy or become a gun maker and make your gun... guns aren't handed out for free to you because you have the right to have them.

    I don't think even our founding fathers wanted just anyone to have a gun. I'm sure there was a presumption that people with guns would know how to use them... and families would train their kids on proper respect/use of guns. You don't just give a random person a gun and say "have at it"...

    And I'm saying that is a horrible system. No reasonably background check can be done in 5 minutes. You're only going to catch known criminals with that sort of quick-check... and as we've established, such criminals are going to get a gun anyway if they want one...

    To this, I always ask... What is the hurry?

    If you need a gun, why do you need it so fast? Nobody, and I'll repeat, NOBODY needs a gun "fast"!

    Someone who needs a gun fast is probably either:

    1. Planning to do something bad for the first time, has a clean record, but wants to do something bad now.
    2. Is responding to a recent trauma... maybe a woman was raped or a person was mugged... such a person feels violated (naturally) and scared and wants to remedy that. This kind of person is volatile, and while probably an otherwise good and law abiding person, this is the kind of person who is apt to get a gun and accidentally hurt themselves or someone else out of panic.

    So... if you've never owned a gun before... there should be no rush/hurry to get one now.

    Decide you want one... apply for the permit... and take the training. Heck, you should want training!

    Alternatively, IF you grew up in a family and your parents told you about guns and taught you proper respect and use... you might be able to pass a proficiency test without a full course. I'm not saying everyone has to take the same course.

    There should be a written test, an oral interview, and proficiency tests. IF you can pass all of those without the training course... then fine, you can do that and get your permit quicker. Otherwise, you have to take the course.

    Again, completely different things. Voting is something that should be free... and free speech by definition should be free... BUT note that you can't just speak whenever and wherever you want.

    You can't demand the local newspaper print your words even though you have the right to say them. You might have to pay for ad space OR pay for college to get hired at the paper OR you might have to invest and start your own newspaper to say what you want.

    Free speech is a right... but isn't always "free"... I can't walk down to my local TV station and demand they put me on TV because I am entitled to free speech.

    Once again, there are some limits to our rights.
     
  3. RunnerFL

    RunnerFL Well-Known Member

    17,054
    312
    Jan 4, 2006
    And that's what criminals count on. They commit cruel and unusual crimes why not punish them in the same manner?
     
  4. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    46,195
    1,074
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    I try to be more civilized than a criminal. :)
     
  5. RunnerFL

    RunnerFL Well-Known Member

    17,054
    312
    Jan 4, 2006
    Again, that's what they count on.
     
  6. phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,104
    330
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    Nothing about this subject is ever simple.

    I have yet to see a valid study demonstrating that the nature of the punishment has a discouraging effect on criminals. But as someone who has been in law enforcement, I know that the wrong people are sentenced for crimes they didn't commit.

    What I do know is it is not unusual to read something like this:
    IMHO that says nothing about Holmes mental status we didn't already know, but it does say a lot about our society.

    America's gun control laws are the loosest in the developed world and its rate of gun-related homicide is the highest. Of the world's 23 "rich" countries, the U.S. gun-related murder rate is almost 20 times that of the other 22.

    The others don't have the death penalty, we do. That's a pretty good indication that adding drawing and quartering won't drop the murder rate.
     
  7. runner861

    runner861 Icon

    859
    0
    Mar 20, 2010
    So you like the 2nd but not the 8th? Are you proposing to amend the Constitution?
     
  8. runner861

    runner861 Icon

    859
    0
    Mar 20, 2010
    Always a possibility, but the alternative is to have no justice system. And the safeguards in place today make the likelihood of an innocent person being convicted much, much less than in the past.
     
  9. runner861

    runner861 Icon

    859
    0
    Mar 20, 2010
    If more guns were the answer to public safety, we would be the safest nation in the history of the world.
     
  10. Getteau

    Getteau Icon

    862
    10
    Dec 19, 2007
    Houston
    It’s not a different topic at all. You are saying I need to pay for training in order to exercise my right to own a firearm. Paying for an ID in a voter ID system is exactly the same thing. You have to pay for an ID in order to exercise your right to vote. One is a training class, the other is an ID. However, they are both something you would need to purchase before you can exercise the specific right.

    How they afford the gun doesn’t matter. Maybe it’s a gift, maybe they had an uncle that passed away and left them the gun and ammo in their will. How the get their firearm doesn’t matter. If they can’t afford your training, they can’t have a gun that they could use to protect themselves or feed their family or target shoot at the range or just keep as a family heirloom.

    Not in places that for all practical purposes have an outright ban on firearms. Try opening a gun range in Chicago or DC and see how far you get. Given the number of people in DC and Chicago that legally own firearms today, I’m sure there is a huge demand for that product. Unfortunately, those city governments’ make it nearly impossible to open up a gun range in the city limits.
    As to the proficiency of the owner of the firearm, the 2nd amendment says nothing about being proficient with the firearm. Just like the 1st amendment says nothing about my free speech being coherent or the various voting amendment’s saying I need to understand who or what I am voting for.



    I agree that the instant background check system could be better. If we had better record sharing between agencies and better access to mental health data, we could make the instant background system much better. For the rest, I reply, why should I have to wait. I have paid my money and I have passed the necessary FBI background check. So why shouldn’t I be able to walk out with my firearm. What do you define as “fast?” Is it one day, 1 week, 2 weeks? What happens if the government agency that does your background check is backed up because of demand or lack of resources, or the official training providers are backed up and my wait is 6 months? Is that fast? Can the current system be improved; I think so. However, waiting periods have not been shown to stop the majority of the crime today.
    #1 was predicted by all the gun rights groups when the instant background check system was put in place and has not occurred as predicted. I would have to dig up the numbers, but the majority of gun related crimes do not take place by someone who just walked into the store and purchased a gun.
    #2. Like #1, if that was going to be a major problem, we would see numerous examples of it during the period the instant background check system has been in place.

    You’re confusing the avenue I use to exercise my free speech with my right to free speech. Like my right to own a gun without training, I should have the right to stand on the street corner exercising my right to free political speech without having to take training class beforehand. Are their restrictions to what I can say and where I can say it; yes there are. Just like there are restrictions to the type of ammunition I can buy or where I can shoot my firearm. However, I don’t have to take a training class before I am allowed to speak or vote; nor should I have to take a training class before I can own a firearm.

    Excellent discussion by the way. I have a feeling neither of us is going to change the others mind. However, it nice to have a civil discussion about it
     
  11. runner861

    runner861 Icon

    859
    0
    Mar 20, 2010
    No firing range in DC or Chicago? Try the basement of any police precinct. There are plenty of ranges in both of those cities, and any other big city, including Los Angeles and New York.
     
  12. Getteau

    Getteau Icon

    862
    10
    Dec 19, 2007
    Houston
    And how many of those police ranges are open to the public? I would be willing to bet very few if any.

    I just did a google search for "Gun range Chicago" and while there are many ranges near Chicago, there was only one range with a Chicago city address.
     
  13. Getteau

    Getteau Icon

    862
    10
    Dec 19, 2007
    Houston
    You still didn't provide a source to your claim that

    "yet the NRA wants the US to be flooded with guns and people to be able to carry any type of firearm anywhere with no training"

    The NRA is seeking lots of things when they lobby the various bodies. For CCW, they are trying to reduce the unreasonable restrictions in places like NY or Chicago or DC or other cities where it is virtually impossible to get a CCW unless you know a police chief or mayor or other connected person. At the national level they are trying to fix the laws that get innocent people arrested if they happen to have a firearm in their car or suitcase as they are traveling through a state that has different firearm laws than the location they came from or were going to. I still don't believe you will find any NRA source that says we should flood the streets with guns and untrained individuals. Especially since training is such a major component at the NRA.
     
  14. runner861

    runner861 Icon

    859
    0
    Mar 20, 2010
    Then show me where they have ever lobbied for requiring training before a person will be allowed to purchase a gun or obtain a CCW.
     
  15. spartanstew

    spartanstew Dry as a bone

    12,566
    61
    Nov 16, 2005
    Wylie, Texas
    Nah, like religious zealots, gun nuts pick and choose the ancient writings that fit their arguments with logic rarely coming into play.
     
  16. Getteau

    Getteau Icon

    862
    10
    Dec 19, 2007
    Houston
    I don't need to, I 'm not the one that said "the NRA wants the US to be flooded with guns and people to be able to carry any type of firearm anywhere with no training." You made the claim, you should be able to back it up.
     
  17. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    46,195
    1,074
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    OK ... let us say that the uncle left a 16 year old a car. Say he can't afford the training and license fee. Is it OK for him to just drive?

    There are plenty of legal activities that require training and licensing. Why not guns?
     
  18. BattleScott

    BattleScott Hall Of Fame

    2,353
    7
    Aug 28, 2006
    That is some pretty extensive FUD right there. There are developed countries with looser laws than ours and ones with tighter ones. Some are richer, some are poorer. Some have higher rates and some have lower.

    Some extreme examples:
    Owning a gun in Taiwan is all but illegal and they have gun homicide rate almost as high as the US.

    Switzerland PUTS and automatic rifle and handgun in the homes of all militia aged men and has an estimated gun ownership rate of nearly half the poplation, yet their gun crime rate is so low they don't even bother keeping statistics.
     
  19. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,626
    391
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Before jumping into the direct replies... let me try another approach to something.

    I think we all agree that criminals who really want guns will probably find a way to get them. So, most of what we talk about here doesn't apply to criminals, because they certainly aren't worried about breaking a gun law to get a gun that they intend to use to break other laws!

    So... imagine a world where every home has a gun... every of-age person has a gun... but no training is required. You just show up, pass the background check, and get a gun.

    Now... I'll wager you right here and now... in that world, honest gun owners will outnumber criminals by a wide margin BUT inept gun owners will especially outnumber criminals... so, today I'm not surrounded my criminals... but tomorrow I would be surrounded by gun owners who, while honest and law abiding, aren't good with their guns... and now instead of worrying about the guy running at my house to break in... I'm worried about all my neighbors sitting in their homes with loaded guns and accidentally firing through the walls when I least expect it by accident.

    IF I get shot... I don't care if it was a criminal or an accidental fire by a neighbor. I'm still shot.

    It is a different topic though... and I've said in other threads that I don't like the idea of a voter photo ID card. I also don't like the idea of requiring people to have ID when they don't drink or drive or travel or do things that otherwise require IDs.

    Like I said... it's a different topic, and I don't want to drag this one too far off-topic... because you'd see I don't favor the ID or paying for an ID in that scenario. You have to provide non-photo ID in order to get a driver's license or passport or whatever in the first place... because at some point you don't have a photo ID to get one with, right? So... I don't see why you can't use those same documents to prove yourself for voting... and you already have those documents because your parents had to get them when you were born.

    But back to this topic...

    Sure it does. Even if they are willed ammo... once that runs out, how will they get more if they can't afford it? I think it's a fair question if the idea of paying for training or certification or a permit is inconceivable, then I'd argue they can't afford the regular maintenance and ammo that a gun requires.

    Maybe I didn't call enough attention to it... but I did explain a little further than that. I envision the permit as a 3-step process similar to the DMV for license to drive:

    1. Written test on firearms care and use.
    2. Oral interview not only to test knowledge but to "read" demeanor and look for potential mental issues, for example.
    3. Proficiency test with the type of gun you are seeking a permit.

    If you apply for a permit then while the background check is processing you can take all of these tests on the spot. IF you pass them, then there's no need to pay for or take training because you will have demonstrated you have all of those skills necessary.

    Maybe your uncle, father, grandfather, or whomever taught you while you were growing up... or perhaps you read and taught yourself and have gone to target ranges before to practice.

    However you manage it... if you can pass the tests and pass the background check, then you get your permit. Done deal. IF you can't pass those tests, then you need training.

    I don't want random people with firearms that don't properly respect them or know how to use and clean them. I'd honestly rather be mugged by an experienced criminal who is threatening me with a gun but knows how to use it and won't shoot me if I follow instructions than be with a friend or neighbor who never shot a gun before waving one around. Think about that.

    I suppose... though it does say something about a militia and the ability to protect yourself... so one could infer that in order to form a militia or to protect yourself that you would need proficiency.

    Our military and law enforcement get quite a bit of training.

    For that matter... it doesn't say you aren't required to have training either. I mean, if we nitpick the constitution... sure it doesn't say "training required" but it also doesn't say that training can't be made a requirement.

    Wait (snide time, so apologies in advance)... I thought you said you didn't have money to pay for training? What are you paying for here? The permit? If it is ok to charge for the permit, why not charge for training too?

    Then again.. as I noted... since I support the right to bear arms, I'd be fine with a tax that goes to fund the training... and as someone else suggested, it could be handled out of police departments with existing gun ranges in areas without private gun ranges... and taxes go to pay the instructors and such.

    Even though I do not want to own a gun... I support the right, and as such, would be willing to pay into a tax fund that supported the training I have outlined.

    I don't know... but again, flip it around. How fast do you need a gun? Today? Tomorrow? Next week? What urgent need for a gun do you have today that you didn't know about weeks ago?

    I use the same argument for speeders. If I needed to get somewhere in a hurry, I should have left earlier! I'm not talking about needing to get to a doctor or hospital... I'm talking about being late for work or a date or whatever... leave early and you never have to speed.

    IF you want a gun, wait for it. IF you can't wait a week then you really should have thought about it last week.. then the wait would be over.

    NC changed their drivers' license policy... they now give you a temporary permit at the place and mail you the real one within 10 days or so. They might get backed up and it could take longer sometimes. Stuff happens.

    Again, there really shouldn't be a scenario where you need an "emergency gun"... I can't imagine a scenario where even a few months wait wouldn't be ok... though I would hope if you don't have to get training and can pass the tests... that it could be done within a week to perform a proper background check.

    Yeah.. but again, criminals won't wait and probably won't even worry about a permit. I'm not worried about criminals in this scenario since I know they will skirt rules.

    I'm worried about non-criminals getting guns that they aren't qualified to use accidentally hurting themselves or someone.

    Think about this too... a lot of states have outlawed many kinds of fireworks because people keep blowing off their own fingers... people not grasping the idea that lighting an explosive and holding it in their hands is a bad thing... Should these people own guns?

    To be fair... the same could be said about guns. You're confusing the "right to bear arms" with specific guns. I see no specific list of guns in the constitution... so as long as I have a selection of say 5 different guns, but outlaw everything else... then I am in fact supporting the 2nd amendment and allowing you to bear arms... just not with any particular arm you might want.

    Does the right to bear arms also only apply to guns? What about broadswords or a scythe or a hatchet or a mace?

    I know I'm being a little silly... but again, if we're nitpicking the language... it can be nitpicked to death.

    But as we said earlier... where in the constitution does it say you have the right to a gun without training?

    Well... to be fair... there is a legal requirement in most states to public education OR a private school OR home schooling... so you kind of do have to take a training class before being allowed to speak :) Even before school, you are training and learning how to speak, right? You don't just show up to the world speaking perfect English (or whatever your home language is)... you have to learn it and demonstrate some manner of proficiency in it before you can deal with others.

    I agree... I agree to disagree :) But I agree in keeping things civil.
     
  20. phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,104
    330
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    Actually it is accurate but selective. My point was about "punishment" - that none of those countries have the death penalty, but we do. By adding drawing and quartering to the punishment, we aren't going to see a plunge in the murder rate.

    It's a capital crime to murder people. Most victims are killed by crazy, angry, or desperate people who aren't thinking about consequences (frequently family) or it is the result of gang violence.

    I would prefer that these none of people have easy access to assault weapons and they not in a short period of time be able to buy 6,000 rounds of ammunition over the internet. But tightening up the rules isn't going to stop most murders.

    Given the number of guns available right now in this country plus illegal sales, if we banned all legal sales we likely wouldn't see a plunge in the murder rate in the first 100 years, if ever.

    Every time one of these incidents happens, we debate gun control and deterrence. Unfortunately, these discussions do not cover the role of violence in our cultural history nor do they shed light on why our culture is different from other modern cultures.

    I attribute the whole problem to geography. Canada nationwide tends to have a meaningfully lower homicide rate than the U.S. Mexico has a meaningfully higher homicide rate. So we are stuck averaging things out because we're in between the two.:D :rolleyes:
     

Share This Page