I guess that's one way of looking at it. If it's true I wish he would have taken some time off to work or travel and come back to finish his PhD. At 24 it's too young to get stuck up on minor bumps and detours.
For what it's worth I think he had a serious mental breakdown (which is very typical around that age *having a mental breakdown *) and I personally doubt he would have done this if the guns weren't so accessible.
For what it's worth I think he had a serious mental breakdown (which is very typical around that age *having a mental breakdown *) and I personally doubt he would have done this if the guns weren't so accessible.
Tens or even hundreds of thousands of people would be alive or uninjured if guns weren't accessible to anyone but the military or police.
Perhaps instead of using guns then he would have used more bombs and explosives... And then there are ways to make home made guns...
(youtube clip)
If someone truly wants to do something (break in to a house, kill someone), they are going to do it. We should always make it harder for them to do it.
Things like alarms, locks, and gun control keep the honest people honest.
If people are truly honest they are honest by nature and no need to have the authorities keep them honest...matter of fact your comment sounds a tad paranoid...
For what it's worth I think he had a serious mental breakdown (which is very typical around that age *having a mental breakdown *) and I personally doubt he would have done this if the guns weren't so accessible.
Tens or even hundreds of thousands of people would be alive or uninjured if guns weren't accessible to anyone but the military or police.
I agree but if guns with high capacity clips and personal assault rifles and hand guns were more restricted it would go a long way to preventing this stuff...
how does this guy have enough money coming in to cover rent, utilities, car, gas and 6000 rounds of ammo, two glock pistols, and an AR-15??? did he work as well as study?
If people are truly honest they are honest by nature and no need to have the authorities keep them honest...matter of fact your comment sounds a tad paranoid...
This is a problem with the Western perspective.
We attribute absolute values to individuals and classify them as such. We only see black and white, in other words.
The reality is that humans are not intrinsically good or evil.
Everyone on this planet is capable of depraved cruelty as well as compassion. Upbringing, societal and environmental factors can, but not always, play a part. People change over time as well.
Someone is always asking what kind of person would commit such a heinous crime.
The kind of person that would do this looks like you; looks like me. They are your friends, family and neighbours. In other words, everyone is a potential mass murderer when certain conditions are met.
Fortunately, for most of us, the ability to surpress primal urges is greater than the temptation, even if only out of fear for the consequences that may result.
The suspect in this case obviously felt he had nothing left to lose and thus, was not constrained by the self-imposed restrictions most productive citizens have in place for themselves.
As for the availability of firearms, I'm a firm believer that strict gun control is a good thing.
As some already pointed out, gun control will not prevent determined killers from acquiring weaponry from the underground economy or even using household tools to do the job if nothing else is available.
However, we are all creatures of habit and convenience. Gun control is effective at curbing the number of deaths that occur as a result of spontaneous violet crime - to say nothing of accidental deaths from the mishandling of firearms.
For an example, two or more individuals are engaged in a heated road rage session. The difference between whether the incident escalates into a fist fight or something considerably more lethal could depend on whether or not one of the participants has a revolver in his glovebox.
For an example, two or more individuals are engaged in a heated road rage session. The difference between whether the incident escalates into a fist fight or something considerably more lethal could depend on whether or not one of the participants has a revolver in his glovebox.
Oh yeah? You wouldn't have any statistics to prove your point, would you? Maybe from one of the thirty or so states that have changed their policies to allow concealed carry over the past 20 years?
Lawful firearm owners are not the problem. Guns aren't the problem. CRIMINALS are the problem. Everything bad criminals do is already banned, yet it doesn't keep them from committing those acts. Do you really see a difference between getting killed by a firearm, a knife, a bomb or bare hands? Are you any more or any less dead?
Lawful firearm owners are not the problem. Guns aren't the problem. CRIMINALS are the problem. Everything bad criminals do is already banned, yet it doesn't keep them from committing those acts. Do you really see a difference between getting killed by a firearm, a knife, a bomb or bare hands? Are you any more or any less dead?
Up until Thursday night, this guy was a lawful gun owner.
Up until Thursday night, this guy was a lawful gun owner.
And the NRA and all their lobbyists will be sure to come up with some excuse to continue to justify letting people like him have unfettered access to weapons. After all every weapon starts out in the hands of a legal law abiding entity whether it be person or corporation.
For an example, two or more individuals are engaged in a heated road rage session. The difference between whether the incident escalates into a fist fight or something considerably more lethal could depend on whether or not one of the participants has a revolver in his glovebox.
Oh yeah? You wouldn't have any statistics to prove your point, would you? Maybe from one of the thirty or so states that have changed their policies to allow concealed carry over the past 20 years?
Lawful firearm owners are not the problem. Guns aren't the problem. CRIMINALS are the problem. Everything bad criminals do is already banned, yet it doesn't keep them from committing those acts. Do you really see a difference between getting killed by a firearm, a knife, a bomb or bare hands? Are you any more or any less dead?
Amazingly enough, the entire gist of my post flew right over your head.
I'll try this again:
No amount of restrictions will prevent career criminals and determined killers from acquiring weaponry.
However, making it difficult to own firearms to the extent that the majority of the population do not own any (as in the case of Canada and Western Europe), deaths that occur as a result of accidental weapon discharge and/or unexpected altercations between two or more parties (armed gangs excluded) are greatly reduced. Someone has already posted some comparison statistics between the United States and other nations with gun control.
As was noted, the suspect in Colorado was anything but a criminal until that fateful night during the new Batman film screenings.
Is it really a surprise to you that law abiding individuals can become criminals over time? Or that guns which were originally purchased can suddenly become an accessory for murder after a road rage incident?
Easy access to firearms enables even upstanding citizens to make terrible mistakes in the heat of passion - errors in judgment from which there is no going back.
Easy access to firearms enables even upstanding citizens to make terrible mistakes in the heat of passion - errors in judgment from which there is no going back.
while i understand your point, if he didn't have guns, could he use a bat, or knives?...it's not like criminals only started to exist when guns arrived...they have been around long before guns ever existed.
i'm not saying we should have guns for sale at 7-11, but i don't think banning all guns is a logical answer...as IamGimli stated (and i have before as well) there are already laws in place here that would prevent "by law" what happened...handguns and automatic weapons are either restricted or prohibited (depending on what they are)...they are heavily regulated and getting them legally isn't easy (here).
For an example, two or more individuals are engaged in a heated road rage session. The difference between whether the incident escalates into a fist fight or something considerably more lethal could depend on whether or not one of the participants has a revolver in his glovebox.
And that consideration, that someone could be armed, deescalates so many road rage situations it's not even funny.
I've seen, with my own eyes, raging dudes hop out of their vehicles on a Saturday night burst out a few words then randomly chill out and hop back in the car. In Toronto, guaranteed brawl (of which I've seen many)... in Miami? Get it out of your system and move on. First time I'd seen that, I'd asked my Miami colleague, "what just happened?" "Well, neither side knows if the other is armed so no one starts any shit."
Based on what I've personally seen, your example is a good reason against strict gun control.
Comparing Miami, which resides in the labelled "gunshine state" of USA, per capita they have less murders, less rapes, less robberies, less assaults despite having more people than Buffalo, NY, which has strict gun control.
i'm not saying we should have guns for sale at 7-11, but i don't think banning all guns is a logical answer...as IamGimli stated (and i have before as well) there are already laws in place here that would prevent "by law" what happened...handguns and automatic weapons are either restricted or prohibited (depending on what they are)
In Colorado, despite their history of Columbine, the fellow was able to legally buy a semiautomatic assault rifle capable of firing 50 to 60 rounds a minute....
I agree, we should NOT ban all guns. It's impractical, and probably undesirable as well as this point in the US.
But having people have handguns and long guns is a bit different from semiautomatic assault rifles.
People are not allowed to buy surface-to-air missiles.
People are not allowed to have anti-tank weapons (bazookas).
Why should those be illegal, yet semiautomatic assault rifles be legal?
On this issue, the Republicans are whores, and too many Democrats are cowards.
Up until Thursday night, this guy was a lawful gun owner.
and if he wasn't, he still would have obtained the same weapons.
First off, how do you know with certainty? He might fall into the keeping people honest category (unlikely but possible). Secondly, it would have been much harder. This logic of "he would have gotten it anyways" leads us to not banning anything as someone will get it anyways. Once again I ask: should we ban crack? Heroin? Whore houses? RPG's? IED's?
i agree with your points...assault rifles are likely "fun to shoot", so allowing them in controlled and regulated environments is likely acceptable (i intend on trying some myself in a couple of weeks), but there has to be a better way to regulate the sale of them...the problem is, as is often the case, us on the "right" often want sensible options, but those on the "left" want to swing things so far the opposite direction, then accuse us of wanting things so far in the "right" direction, it gets ridiculous...i feel that most of us in here on the "right" agree proper regulation is important, and don't feel that everyone should be able to own whatever they want, despite the fact those on the "left" seem to insinuate that.
if he didn't have guns, could he use a bat, or knives?...it's not like criminals only started to exist when guns arrived...they have been around long before guns ever existed.
When was the last time one guy with one knife or bat killed 12 people and injured 58 in the span of minutes?
said by Robert4:First off, how do you know with certainty?
we don't, which is why an all out ban is useless...Guy Turcotte killed his kids...he was a doctor...he stabbed them...would it have been any different if they were shot??...why not a knife ban?
quote:Once again I ask: should we ban crack? Heroin? Whore houses? RPG's? IED's?
i'm not sure why you ask??...those are already banned.
Cars have a function in society where as hand guns are just little toys for guys who haven't grown up yet.
i assume you've never used one?
You already know the answer as I posted several threads ago that I have fired probably more different handguns than most, if not all, posting in here.
Residing in the US gave me access to firearms that are restricted here and yes having done so they are fun little toys but have no place in society other than cops and military use.
When was the last time one guy with one knife or bat killed 12 people and injured 58 in the span of minutes?
well, it certainly is much harder with a gun, and i understand that...but whether you kill 1, 2 or 12, does it really matter?
a quick google search pulled up this guy who bought a knife in a supermarket, then used it as a weapon, stabbing patrons in the foyer, until one patron brandished a firearm (he had a concealed carry permit) and told him to drop the weapon or he would shoot him...the suspect dropped the weapon and the situation was stopped immediately...either way, the situation was over, the only difference is the suspect was either going to be arrested, or was going to get shot (likely killed).
then there was this story, of 2 men, at least one armed with a knife who were trying to gain entry into a single mother's home...little did they know she was armed with a handgun and a 12 gauge shotgun...when they broke the door down to gain entry, she shot one of them (the other took off).
....the problem is, as is often the case, us on the "right" often want sensible options....
Agreed.
The problem is, what is [right-wing] in Canada would be considered [moderate] in the US these days.
US right-wingers are kind of in a universe by themselves.
Our country must increasingly scare the shit out of you Canadians.
If you folks have not read the book or see the movie, you should:
The Handmaid's Tale is a dystopian novel, a work of science fiction or speculative fiction, written by Canadian author Margaret Atwood and published in 1985.
It is set in the near future in the Republic of Gilead, a totalitarian theocracy formed within the borders of what was formerly the United States of America. It was founded by a racist, homophobic, male chauvinist, nativist, theocratic-organized military coup as an ideologically driven response to the pervasive ecological, physical and social degradation of the country.
Beginning with a staged terrorist attack (blamed on Islamic extremist terrorists) that kills the President and most of Congress, a movement calling itself the "Sons of Jacob" launched a revolution and suspend the United States Constitution under the pretext of restoring order.