12 shot dead, 38 injured at Batman premiere in Denver, USA.

[OutByEaster?]

Firearms were what fended off European nations who wanted to control us, and firearms are what cleared the midwest, the plains, and finally the west of the Indians. Our country was founded on the application of gun violence. It was intrinsic to establishing the republic, it was what defeated the South in the civil war, and so the right to bear arms is revered and well protected.

I believe in the right to bear arms, but with severe restrictions. No high capacity firearms, no assault rifles, no hollow point bullets, etc. I think the criteria used to assess someone seeking a permit needs to be made much more stringent. Psychological exams and better background checks. Yearly permit renewal, with another round of psych testing. Also a longer waiting period before being able to purchase a weapon, a massive tax on ownership, etc.

But even these sensible changes will not happen in every state, especially those states with a strong gun culture.

Why?

Why do ordinary people need guns?

To fight off Europeans?

[briggaman]

I've just been having a big debate on Facebook with an American friend I used to go to school with. He is under the impression that a gun is just a "tool" and should be carried at all times. This is what their society has come to accept.

[kurtsimonw]

Firearms were what fended off European nations who wanted to control us, and firearms are what cleared the midwest, the plains, and finally the west of the Indians. Our country was founded on the application of gun violence. It was intrinsic to establishing the republic, it was what defeated the South in the civil war, and so the right to bear arms is revered and well protected.

I'm sorry, but going that far back to prove a point is way off target. And back then "us" were probably just a European as Europe. And your last point is very bad, Civil War is not a good example.

[maqroll]

Firearms were what fended off European nations who wanted to control us, and firearms are what cleared the midwest, the plains, and finally the west of the Indians. Our country was founded on the application of gun violence. It was intrinsic to establishing the republic, it was what defeated the South in the civil war, and so the right to bear arms is revered and well protected.

I believe in the right to bear arms, but with severe restrictions. No high capacity firearms, no assault rifles, no hollow point bullets, etc. I think the criteria used to assess someone seeking a permit needs to be made much more stringent. Psychological exams and better background checks. Yearly permit renewal, with another round of psych testing. Also a longer waiting period before being able to purchase a weapon, a massive tax on ownership, etc.

But even these sensible changes will not happen in every state, especially those states with a strong gun culture.

Why?

Why do ordinary people need guns?

To fight off Europeans?

No need to be glib, I was simply providing an historical context for the significance of guns in the US.

Why do people need them? Thousands of people hunt game to eat, some people live in rural areas where bears, wolves, coyotes and cougars roam...

But sadly, I think most people own weapons because they know how many people out there are armed as well, and might have bad intentions.

In my town, several years ago, a woman who lived alone was attacked in her apartment by a guy in a ski mask and a hunting knife. She had a legal handgun, and she used it. Shot him dead. If she was your sister, girlfriend or mother, you'd have been grateful she was armed...

Anyway you look at it, the situation sucks, but this country is teeming with firearms, and many of them illegal and in the hands of criminals. Some people take a firearms course, get a permit and buy a handgun to protect themselves, and I can't fault them. It's a **** up, violent country.

[maqroll]

Firearms were what fended off European nations who wanted to control us, and firearms are what cleared the midwest, the plains, and finally the west of the Indians. Our country was founded on the application of gun violence. It was intrinsic to establishing the republic, it was what defeated the South in the civil war, and so the right to bear arms is revered and well protected.

I'm sorry, but going that far back to prove a point is way off target. And back then "us" were probably just a European as Europe. And your last point is very bad, Civil War is not a good example.

Going that far back is to provide historical context for the significance of firearms here, full stop. It just means that the culture of gun ownership has been ingrained in Americans as far back as the 1700's.

[kurtsimonw]

In my town, several years ago, a woman who lived alone was attacked in her apartment by a guy in a ski mask and a hunting knife. She had a legal handgun, and she used it. Shot him dead. If she was your sister, girlfriend or mother, you'd have been grateful she was armed...

Absolutely, but it would still be selfish of me. Do you think the number of 'victims' that've survived as a result of having a gun outweighs the victims that've been killed by a gun? I don't and I doubt even if you multiplied it by 10 that you'd even be close.

Now it's there I don't think you can just take it away, certainly not somewhere as huge as the States. This kind of thing (not exactly this kind of thing) will keep on happening though as a result and there is nothing that can stop it.

@ your last reply, aren't they more 'military' things though? Defending your borders and a civil war aren't just regular civilians really. That's no different than what Britain has been doing for centuries, we use guns to protect, but that doesn't mean we give them out to everyone who wants one.

[OutByEaster?]

Firearms were what fended off European nations who wanted to control us, and firearms are what cleared the midwest, the plains, and finally the west of the Indians. Our country was founded on the application of gun violence. It was intrinsic to establishing the republic, it was what defeated the South in the civil war, and so the right to bear arms is revered and well protected.

I believe in the right to bear arms, but with severe restrictions. No high capacity firearms, no assault rifles, no hollow point bullets, etc. I think the criteria used to assess someone seeking a permit needs to be made much more stringent. Psychological exams and better background checks. Yearly permit renewal, with another round of psych testing. Also a longer waiting period before being able to purchase a weapon, a massive tax on ownership, etc.

But even these sensible changes will not happen in every state, especially those states with a strong gun culture.

Why?

Why do ordinary people need guns?

To fight off Europeans?

No need to be glib, I was simply providing an historical context for the significance of guns in the US.

Why do people need them? Thousands of people hunt game to eat, some people live in rural areas where bears, wolves, coyotes and cougars roam...

But sadly, I think most people own weapons because they know how many people out there are armed as well, and might have bad intentions.

In my town, several years ago, a woman who lived alone was attacked in her apartment by a guy in a ski mask and a hunting knife. She had a legal handgun, and she used it. Shot him dead. If she was your sister, girlfriend or mother, you'd have been grateful she was armed...

Anyway you look at it, the situation sucks, but this country is teeming with firearms, and many of them illegal and in the hands of criminals. Some people take a firearms course, get a permit and buy a handgun to protect themselves, and I can't fault them. It's a **** up, violent country.

Well, if you're happy then carry on.

[maqroll]

In my town, several years ago, a woman who lived alone was attacked in her apartment by a guy in a ski mask and a hunting knife. She had a legal handgun, and she used it. Shot him dead. If she was your sister, girlfriend or mother, you'd have been grateful she was armed...

Absolutely, but it would still be selfish of me. Do you think the number of 'victims' that've survived as a result of having a gun outweighs the victims that've been killed by a gun? I don't and I doubt even if you multiplied it by 10 that you'd even be close.

Now it's there I don't think you can just take it away, certainly not somewhere as huge as the States. This kind of thing (not exactly this kind of thing) will keep on happening though as a result and there is nothing that can stop it.

You are quite right. My earlier post I said that gun laws need severe restrictions imposed on them. Certain types of weapons and ammo that are currently legal in some states need to be banned outright.

Measures can be taken to reduce the number and types of weapons out there, but the political will to do so verges on nil, especially in the traditional "gun culture" states. It's political suicide for a congressman or senator from Texas or Wyoming, etc. to even suggest restrictive measures.

[maqroll]

Firearms were what fended off European nations who wanted to control us, and firearms are what cleared the midwest, the plains, and finally the west of the Indians. Our country was founded on the application of gun violence. It was intrinsic to establishing the republic, it was what defeated the South in the civil war, and so the right to bear arms is revered and well protected.

I believe in the right to bear arms, but with severe restrictions. No high capacity firearms, no assault rifles, no hollow point bullets, etc. I think the criteria used to assess someone seeking a permit needs to be made much more stringent. Psychological exams and better background checks. Yearly permit renewal, with another round of psych testing. Also a longer waiting period before being able to purchase a weapon, a massive tax on ownership, etc.

But even these sensible changes will not happen in every state, especially those states with a strong gun culture.

Why?

Why do ordinary people need guns?

To fight off Europeans?

No need to be glib, I was simply providing an historical context for the significance of guns in the US.

Why do people need them? Thousands of people hunt game to eat, some people live in rural areas where bears, wolves, coyotes and cougars roam...

But sadly, I think most people own weapons because they know how many people out there are armed as well, and might have bad intentions.

In my town, several years ago, a woman who lived alone was attacked in her apartment by a guy in a ski mask and a hunting knife. She had a legal handgun, and she used it. Shot him dead. If she was your sister, girlfriend or mother, you'd have been grateful she was armed...

Anyway you look at it, the situation sucks, but this country is teeming with firearms, and many of them illegal and in the hands of criminals. Some people take a firearms course, get a permit and buy a handgun to protect themselves, and I can't fault them. It's a **** up, violent country.

Well, if you're happy then carry on.

I'm NOT happy, I just said the situation sucks.

[OutByEaster?]

I'm NOT happy, I just said the situation sucks.

I know you're not, but it seems that there's no will to change the situation when from the outside the solution is as clear as could be.

Just cos something's hard doesn't mean it shouldn't be done and just cos somethings written on a constitution doesn't make it right.

[maqroll]

In my town, several years ago, a woman who lived alone was attacked in her apartment by a guy in a ski mask and a hunting knife. She had a legal handgun, and she used it. Shot him dead. If she was your sister, girlfriend or mother, you'd have been grateful she was armed...

Absolutely, but it would still be selfish of me. Do you think the number of 'victims' that've survived as a result of having a gun outweighs the victims that've been killed by a gun? I don't and I doubt even if you multiplied it by 10 that you'd even be close.

Now it's there I don't think you can just take it away, certainly not somewhere as huge as the States. This kind of thing (not exactly this kind of thing) will keep on happening though as a result and there is nothing that can stop it.

@ your last reply, aren't they more 'military' things though? Defending your borders and a civil war aren't just regular civilians really. That's no different than what Britain has been doing for centuries, we use guns to protect, but that doesn't mean we give them out to everyone who wants one.

Many of the Confederate soldiers used their own rifles.

[maqroll]

I'm NOT happy, I just said the situation sucks.

I know you're not, but it seems that there's no will to change the situation when from the outside the solution is as clear as could be.

Just cos something's hard doesn't mean it shouldn't be done and just cos somethings written on a constitution doesn't make it right.

Well of course! The debate over this issue has been raging for years in this country. There are countless Americans who support a total ban on firearms, or at least a major overhaul of the laws currently on the books.

Every time one of these mass shootings happen, the volume gets turned way up on the debate, but nothing changes because the NRA/ gun lobby is a monster and can make or break a political candidacy all by itself.

[snowychap]

In my town, several years ago, a woman who lived alone was attacked in her apartment by a guy in a ski mask and a hunting knife. She had a legal handgun, and she used it. Shot him dead. If she was your sister, girlfriend or mother, you'd have been grateful she was armed...

Maybe, maybe not. How's she doing now? Perhaps she's regretting having killed someone, perhaps she isn't.

What if she had been the one to have ended up dead by her own weapon? Would you have been using that as an emotive tale to support being armed?

[maqroll]

In my town, several years ago, a woman who lived alone was attacked in her apartment by a guy in a ski mask and a hunting knife. She had a legal handgun, and she used it. Shot him dead. If she was your sister, girlfriend or mother, you'd have been grateful she was armed...

Maybe, maybe not. How's she doing now? Perhaps she's regretting having killed someone, perhaps she isn't.

What if she had been the one to have ended up dead by her own weapon? Would you have been using that as an emotive tale to support being armed?

We could "what if" all night long, it doesn't change the fact that by using her firearm, she thwarted a probable rape, and a possible murder.

My father lives in a rural part of New England where there has been a scourge of meth/oxycontin abuse and related crimes, particularly home invasion/robberies. My father has a firearm. It gives him some peace of mind, and it gives me some as well.

[maqroll]

The geography of gun violence

Decent article...

[snowychap]

We could "what if" all night long, it doesn't change the fact that by using her firearm, she thwarted a probable rape, and a possible rape/murder.

And 'what if' she was your x, y or z, eh?

[leviramsey]

I have little knowledge of US gun laws. Do they differ state to state? If you have a permit can you carry a gun when, for example, going to the local mall?

They range from more or less totally unrestricted (Vermont, perhaps the most left-wing state in the Union (being the home of the only Socialist in Congress)) to highly restricted (DC).

Vermont gun law:

[T]he people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State – and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

In practice that means: no permit required to purchase any firearm, no registration of firearms, no distinction between different types of firearms (e.g. it is fully legal to walk around with a loaded AK-47), no license required to own any firearm, no permits required nor issued for concealed or open carry ("the Constitution is the carry permit"); gun dealers are required to record sales, though.

[norton65ca]

It's a problem in the U.S

I watched Columnbine the other day and the Stats are something as follows;

USA shootings that killed >20,000

Canada <300

UK <30

etc etc.

Canada have similar gun laws yet they aren't killing themselves with them. Yes there are less people in Canada but the releative numbers are still much lower.

There is something wrong with the attitudes of the people in the U.S. towards guns.

Gun laws in Canada, although different by virtue, perhaps, of our history and our geography than those in Europe, are a far cry indeed from those in force in our neighbour to the south.

[leviramsey]

Will Wilkinson"]

The killings in Aurora, Colorado are literally sickening. I've been a little sick about it all day. And I find myself with the urge to say that this sort of horrifying mass murder is "senseless," that it defies comprehension, though it's not clear to me why I want to say that. I guess some part of me wishes it were senseless. But it isn't. We can make sense of hopelessness, anger, violent nihilism, bloodlust. It's not really so hard to see why someone might want to punish the world, or to make life intensely vivid for a few fleeting moments by killing a roomful of screaming people. We recoil from such gruesome inner scenes, but only because imagination is so capable of calling them forth. I wouldn't go so far as Terence and say "Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." People do plenty that simply does not compute. But Aurora, I guess I'm sorry to say, is not one of those things. What's truly terrifying to me is not that that this sort of thing is impossible to understand, but that it is so easy to imagine from the perspective both of the murdered and the murderer, and then, having imagined it, finding that I cannot quite fathom why it doesn't happen all the time. It is our safety that's mysterious.

Paul Campos writes:

[T]he surprising thing about the Aurora shooting is that incidents of this type don’t happen more often. We live in a (compared to the rest of the developed world) extraordinarily violent, deeply economically stratified nation, with more than 270 million guns floating around – enough to arm every adult and half the kids in the nation.

A lot of Americans are broke, or angry, or paranoid, or all three, and a lot of these people are heavily armed. It’s not exactly a shock that this combination of factors helps produce 15,000 murders per year.

Why should it be "surprising ... that incidents of this type don’t happen more often"? Because we don't really understand why they don't. The fact that all the people who were murdered had gathered to watch the latest in a series of movies about mass-murdering lunatics must be meaningful. Our pop culture is chock full of deranged figures plotting mass destruction and death, which seems to me strongly to suggest that we find it pretty easy, enjoyable even, to imagine our way into the minds and motivations of men set on atrocity. Would we pay so much so often to feel the frisson of fictive enormities if the drive to commit them seemed to us too baffling to take seriously, like the desire to be suffocated by eels, or the urge to put a little glitter in every fat man's pockets? I don't think we would.

The URL but not the headline of Campos' piece asks "why-arent-there-more-auroras". Well, why aren't there? Campos does not hazard a guess. Here is mine. We are more thoroughly controlled by our society's norms than we tend to imagine. In a setting of peace, outside the context of war, to perpetrate an act like the Aurora massacre requires an almost superhuman feat of volition. There aren't more Aurora's because we are sociable robots, programmed for peace. To override that programming and act really monstrously requires both an uncommon estrangement and an implausibly free will.

[legov]

If this were to happen in the UK he'd probably be given 2 weeks community service Anonimity a nice string of benefits and a mansion to live in

Bullshit.

I couldn't find the words, and you went and did it in one.

That comment has genuinely made me angry.

Anywho... As per comment on these things - If you will have such a gun culture, this kind of thing will happen.

I await the comments that 'if someone in the theatre had been carrying they'd have put this guy down and saved lives, and thats why we need guns and concealed carry permits'.

A great shame. People out to enjoy themselves, and find only terror.

First: I support strict gun laws.

BUT these kind of rampages (as I listed earlier in this thread, with examples from Finland, Norway, Australia, Scotland, Germany and US) can not be seen as dependent on loose gun laws.

I live in Norway, a country where gun laws are very strict. Even the police are not allowed to have guns available (they must ask for premission to bring out the guns when something extraordinary happens). We have 5 million people in our country, and every year the number of murders are 30-35. But exactly one year ago, we had the Utoya killings.

Our gun laws did not stop Breivik. And how could they? He planned his actions for years, and did all the right things to obtain the guns (started going to a pistol club a couple of years before he made the murders so he legally could obtain a gun).

Several of these killing rampages seems to be planned over time, and then gun control rarely helps, as they will get the guns they need no matter what.

The common thing in these settings are a young single man that has built up some extreme rage over time, and they have lost face, had bad luck with girls, lost their jobs, dropped out of school, been outsiders etc.

I think these are not the cases that will be affected by gun laws.

What stricter gun laws will have an effect on is those impulsive rage murders there are a lot of in the US. Example when someone is thrown out of a disco and they get their gun and kill the doorman. Or someone just been rejected and they have the gun available. Or even road rage with a gun available. Etc etc etc.

Well put.