Mass shooting at Batman film premiere.

This post was pretty much unnecesary

Your ignorance?

Ignorance about what exactly? I don't see cameron ordering the killing of british citizens?

The guy had an assault rifle which is illegal in the USA for a civilian under any circumstances, so implying stricter gun laws would have helped here shows a lot about you. Correlation does not equal causation why does Switzerland not have more gun crime than the USA their gun laws are even more lax, you're also showing your ignorance now because guns are harder to get in the USA than you think, you need to pass a background check, that is mental health, criminal record and more.

You're clearly one of these retards who thinks all americans are creationists who believe the world is 3000 years old.

I know, I used it as an opportunity to address the more general points always raised in this debate.

Well anyone who has seen the film 'Bowling for Columbine' will realise it's not a straight forward answer.

People can be (and by and large are) responsible owners of guns.

The ratio of gun owners in the world and massacres is incredibly small. But it is reported so thoroughly and intently throughout the world that it becomes hysteric.

Countries don't make vehicles illegal, even though they kill many more people than guns.

Most countries don't make marijuana legal even though it kills much less people than alcohol.

However, the issue has to be raised that a gun's only use is to kill. So why are they legal?

I was asking a genuine question - why do you think America has these massacres? If the answer is poverty, why are the majority of the killers from middle class backgrounds?

And now you have amnesia. That's not what you said.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms


Surprise surprise. The countries where you can buy guns legally top the list. Even Switzerland has more than twice the rate than the UK. And some idiots are seriously trying to suggest making guns illegal wouldn't make a difference??

If Britain legalised guns then I could guarantee they would be higher up on that list.

LOLLOLLOL now who's the retard?

South Africa has extraordinarily strict gun laws so has Mexico. Colombia and Thailand also have restrictive gun laws AHAHAHA, showing your intelligence now aren't we, it's poverty.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/colombia

Well anyone who has seen the film 'Bowling for Columbine' will realise it's not a straight forward answer.

People can be (and by and large are) responsible owners of guns.

The ratio of gun owners in the world and massacres is incredibly small. But it is reported so thoroughly and intently throughout the world that it becomes hysteric.

Countries don't make vehicles illegal, even though they kill many more people than guns.

Most countries don't make marijuana legal even though it kills much less people than alcohol.

However, the issue has to be raised that a gun's only use is to kill. So why are they legal?

I was asking a genuine question - why do you think America has these massacres? If the answer is poverty, why are the majority of the killers from middle class backgrounds?

I was in primary school about 5 minutes away from Columbine when that shooting happened. I can tell you that both of the shooters came from neighborhoods and lived in an area where most people were pretty comfortable financially.

There's so much coverage on these shootings that I think sometimes people see them in a glorified light, you know? See themselves as some twisted martyr.

They were bullied, nobody took the time to ask them why they were sad or showed interest in them, it's the culture of ignoring other people's problems which caused Columbine and which causes poverty, in fact the guns used in Columbine were acquired illegally, perhaps the police service needs better funding.

The main reason is people in the US care so much is how popular the sports of hunting and target shooting are, they're also used for home defence because their police suck balls and its based up the idea that if the government has a monopoly on lethal force this monopoly leads to tyranny.

I think it's a bit of a copout to say they were bullied and that's the reason.

People in other countries get bullied. I was bullied at one point. There were kids at my school who were insanely bullied... Yet no massacres. A couple of fights but no massacres.

Now, had their grandad owned an arsenal of weapons.... Maybe it would've been a different story...

Yes I agree the elite of the past and many of the elite of today gained their status by use of violence. Keeping the weak diminished is a way of preserving power, however my point is, is this the case in nation like the UK. Elite status no longer means controlling power in western countries like it was in the past. The power these days is very much with the people rather than with the elite. Immediate control of firearms and violence is controlled by those in government, but many of those that hold office are the people though. Elite status less a question of titles handed down by your forefather but rather power given by popular demand. However this point is digressing a bit. Also I certainly do not think those in the police and armed foces wield firearms by virtue. My point here was although they are part of a collective body controlled by a hierarchy, they are also individuals too. The government owns the guns, but it's the individuals that are pulling the trigger, and each individual questions how much they have to gain from acting out on orders given by those in control. So in that sense it's not really a question of whether or not there should be a monopoly on violence, it's a question of who controls this monopoly.