Also my point about crime going down remains, and you do have to take into account that most of that is not violent crimes, it's shoplifting and the like.
Okay, read the article, never mind. This isn't some one manipulating a disaster to gain a political advantage. This was just someone stating his opinion.
the problem to me seems that the gun laws are designed to keep guns away from the people who can acquire them illegally, and then the crazy shooty folks are more than happy to jump through the hoops they need to acquire guns.
Doctor Who reference in Pokemon B2W2? Headcanon accepted.
The problem with that opinion is Ebert is speaking from his metropolitan standpoint on firearms and then applying that to all of America. If he came down here and visited the three gun shops within walking distance of my front door, he'd have a heart attack. And I'm not talking about the ubiquity of assault rifles like AK-47s and M4s. The one around the corner from my little house sold a 20mm anti-tank rifle, Tommy guns are available for sale with a permit, and .50cal elephant-murderers are incredibly common. Despite all these lax gun laws in a city of 250k, no massacre has occurred here ever. The only thing we're known for is birthing Rock and Roll with Buddy Holly and a really bad tornado in the 80's.
That's not what he's saying. What he's saying is that just about anyone can walk in and buy a gun. Apparently the people in your area have less of the problems that usually affect the, as FM put it, crazy shooty folks.
Doctor Who reference in Pokemon B2W2? Headcanon accepted.
If you're talking about the ease of consumer to purchase a firearm, that's not true. I bought my very first rifle at the beginning of the year, an old surplus Mosin-Nagant for $75 from Big 5. Really basic bolt-action rifle, nothing to write home about. I still had to go through a background check, which took a deal of time even here in Texas. Holmes went through this same procedure too. There was no way they could know his intentions when he did so. They can't know the intentions of the millions who legally purchase firearms in the United States on a daily basis. Hell, I could go purchase a car right now and drive it off the lot and then drive it into a crowded area. The car dealership isn't at fault, neither is the way the purchase was made.
Now if you're talking about black market back-alley purchases, there's nothing that can be done about that.
You misunderstand. I'm not saying that the folks who are liable to do this sort of large scale shooting thing generally buy their guns legally after background checks ect.
Which means that the background checks should be redesigned, because those people shouldn't have guns.
Or, in addition to background checks, psychological evaluations?..
I'm no expert on this matter, but something like this happening after all procedures were performed properly clearly indicates that something needs fixing.
He actually did purchase the guns legally. But all that other stuff he purchased shouldn't have been legal. Besides, there should be some sort of limit on how many guns or how much ammunition you can have. It doesn't take more than a few shots to protect yourself, hunting doesn't require that much ammunition, and if you just like having guns you don't need to have them all loaded.
I don't find the Ebert article particularly objectionable (I don't agree with it, but I can see where he's coming from), but the suggestion that the solution to living in a violent neighbourhood is to move away is pretty stupid, and I could have done without the suggestion that opposition to gun control is mere paranoia.
But, obviously, the idea that jumping through hoops to obtain firearms will effectively deter crazies who are determined to kill is heavily flawed. I don't think we can assume this was preventable, but perhaps it does suggest that the background checks need re-evaluating, if they are ineffectual.
He actually did purchase the guns legally. But all that other stuff he purchased shouldn't have been legal. Besides, there should be some sort of limit on how many guns or how much ammunition you can have. It doesn't take more than a few shots to protect yourself, hunting doesn't require that much ammunition, and if you just like having guns you don't need to have them all loaded.
I'm not going to argue with you about the legality of military surplus, because that's what he was wearing, and if that flak jacket he was wearing is what I think it was then the most effective thing about it is its rancid smell from absorbing sweat and dirt from troops over the years.
As for limiting ammo or the amount of ammo, there's no way you could possibly police that. Let's suppose there's a law put into place that you can only purchase so many rounds over a certain time frame. Just because a person is imbalanced doesn't mean they can't be patient. Same goes for limiting the amount of guns one person can own. You can only carry so many on you at a time and if you're holed up somewhere, the only consideration is ammo.
Now if you're talking about limiting the amount of ammunition a weapon can hold, that just means you're going to have to account for an extra second or two to drop and insert another clip. That's it.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
I agree that Ebert is being mostly fairly reasonable here. I think he may be simplifying things a bit. One of the surprising issues here was the shooter had no red-flags in his background.
I believe his mental disorders where probably on record, though if he was being treated for them, it might be harder to deny him access to guns. Obviously, too, the guy wasn't so crazy he couldn't get a higher education. Though, it seemed he was unhinged enough that a Gun club recently denied or was going to deny him membership.
The background check might do well to include references, or phone interviews with family members or some-such, however, then we're also looking at paying people to conduct these interviews, etc...
I'm not saying there isn't room for improvement, just that it'll take a lot of to craft something that seems fair and also helps prevent situations like this.
Something my manager mentioned over breakfast the day of the shooting is how easy it is to get a gun even with bypassing laws. Many people will sell them out of something like Craiglist, I'm sure the legality of such varies by state, though I have little doubt a few more laws on the books would have done much here.
Anyhow, putting the debate about what laws can be put into place to help prevent this, I found one part of the article pretty dumb:
“Why do you need to carry a gun?” McHugh asked him.
“I live in a dangerous neighborhood.”
“It would be safer if you moved.”
Putting aside the impact to the surrounding area if EVERYONE from this "dangerous neighborhood" somehow picked up stakes and moved, moving is not cheap. You have to find a new place, pony up a deposit for it and also figure out how to move all your stuff you want to keep to the new place. The thing about "dangerous neighborhoods" is their usually also places of lower living expenses, so moving out of one to a place that isn't equally as dangerous might also mean having access to a higher monthly wage than this person currently has.
Doctor Who reference in Pokemon B2W2? Headcanon accepted.
That's the other bit I didn't like. Ebert thinks the reasonable measure is to comply with the violence and run away from the problem, which is exactly the same kind of mentality that allowed a bunch of nutjobs with box cutters access to two jetliner cockpits and start this gigantic mess the entire world is in right now.
As for Holmes, he was a 24 year old working on a Phd in a really tough field, so it could have been the stress that made him snap or something else. I don't know. If he had a clean record when he went to buy his guns, there's nothing anyone could have done.
Personally, I think that laws can only do so much.
Do I think we need tighter gun control in this country? Maybe I do, but I don't think the most restrictive gun laws in the world would've really stopped this.
Doctor Who reference in Pokemon B2W2? Headcanon accepted.
The problem with gun control/restrictive gun laws is only law-abiding citizens will follow them. All the "Gun-Free Zone" signs and the like will not do a single thing to stop a nut like Holmes or the VTech shooter. All those unregistered firearms floating around the underworld aren't going to disappear because of new gun laws, and obtaining them from the black market or a back alley isn't going to be any harder for it. Gun control laws are exactly like that costume ban that AMC enacted the day after the massacre -- a useless gesture.
The problem with gun control as I see it and looking that the stats that CF ages ago is that its a worse than useless gesture to restrict legal gun ownership as long as illegal guns are still easy to obtain.
Yeah, I think this sums up my position rather nicely.
For the most part, I agreed with what Ebert was saying, although I think the manner in which he stated the whole "why don't you move?" thing was pretty weak compared to the rest of the article. (Although people who pack heat openly in a dangerous neighbourhood tend to be people with very strange priorities.)
I think the biggest problem here is that most of the "we should have done more" responses are rather unrealistic. The pro-concealed-carry types are under the impression that having a gun on them makes them a superhero, able to fend off a madman at a moment's notice. With situations like this, I doubt that would have mattered; this was an ambush, and even the best shot would have had problems with that. There were people trying to push this agenda after the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007, and I said the same thing then -- very few people can handle a weapon in a crisis situation.
On the other hand, gun control would have been moot because this is the sort of person that wanted people to die, and didn't care how he did it. There's not much you can do to control a madman if he slips under the radar, unless you want to harass or annoy lots of regular people in the process. The cops slipped up with Cho in 2007 because his mental issues went unreported, but in this case, there was no sign the shooter had any problems at all.
In any case, I'm a little sick of both sides trying to use a tragedy to put forth their political agendas. Save the squabbling over gun laws for whenever Congress reconvenes, or for the cable talk shows. Leave Aurora out of this.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
That does seem to be the general consensus, even amongst members of the media.
There was very little to do here.
One thing that I found interesting is that many people are saying is that there would have been less death if he didn't have that 100 drum magazine, which makes sense on the surface. But as Foresythe pointed out, it likely caused the gun to jam and he would have actually done better not being so ambitious.
I guess everyone just wants SOMETHING to be done, as the idea that this could have been prevented is a bit easier to swallow than the idea that crazy people are just occasionally going to get enough dangerous weapons and material to wreck some havoc.
"It is a matter of grave importance that Fairy tales should be respected.... Whosoever alters them to suit his own opinions, whatever they are, is guilty, to our thinking, of an act of presumption, and appropriates to himself what does not belong to him." -- Charles Dickens
Yeah, it's very much a social problem and only somewhat a "people can buy deadly weapons" problem. Guns have been readily available all over the United States since colonial times, and these awful massacres only happen in recent times in urban areas.
Comments
But that says total.
Also my point about crime going down remains, and you do have to take into account that most of that is not violent crimes, it's shoplifting and the like.
from wikipedia.
technically speaking, this only applies to violent crimes in the United States, but I'm fairly certain that's a worldwide trend as well.
Personally, though, I am having some trouble processing this incident.
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Which means that the background checks should be redesigned, because those people shouldn't have guns.
I'm no expert on this matter, but something like this happening after all procedures were performed properly clearly indicates that something needs fixing.
But all that other stuff he purchased shouldn't have been legal. Besides, there should be some sort of limit on how many guns or how much ammunition you can have. It doesn't take more than a few shots to protect yourself, hunting doesn't require that much ammunition, and if you just like having guns you don't need to have them all loaded.
But, obviously, the idea that jumping through hoops to obtain firearms will effectively deter crazies who are determined to kill is heavily flawed. I don't think we can assume this was preventable, but perhaps it does suggest that the background checks need re-evaluating, if they are ineffectual.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
"dangerous neighborhoods" is their usually also places of lower living expenses, so moving out of one to a place that isn't equally as dangerous might also mean having access to a higher monthly wage than this person currently has.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Personally, I think that laws can only do so much.
Do I think we need tighter gun control in this country? Maybe I do, but I don't think the most restrictive gun laws in the world would've really stopped this.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis