[manchesterunited15]

(Original post by Steevee)
Yep, clearly the guns are the problem.

Anti-gun people

Well yes, please tell me how that guy would have killed 14 people without a gun?

[manchesterunited15]

(Original post by Jack93o)
surprised that more people haven't figured this out

even in this country theres no stopping anyone from taking a kitchen knife and going wild in any crowded place

But with a kitchen knife you would be far easier to stop...

[Steevee]

(Original post by manchesterunited15)
Well yes, please tell me how that guy would have killed 14 people without a gun?

Because explosives don't exist. Illegal guns don't exist. Knives, bats, crossbows, none of them exist.

You get a tradgedy like this, and the first thing people do is go 'Herp a derp, let's ban guns!'

[Ham22]

(Original post by Steevee)
Because explosives don't exist. Illegal guns don't exist. Knives, bats, crossbows, none of them exist.

You get a tradgedy like this, and the first thing people do is go 'Herp a derp, let's ban guns!'

Guns are on the more efficient side of deadly weapons though aren't they. The man wasn't going to kill 12 and injure 60 (or whatever the figure is now) with a cross-bow, loading and reloading after each shot. Or with a knife, or with a baseball bat.

[somethingbeautiful]

(Original post by rbnphlp)
I think installing Powerful magnets inside cinema's and public places is the way forward.

Those poor people with metal hips/knees though...

[manchesterunited15]

(Original post by Steevee)
Because explosives don't exist. Illegal guns don't exist. Knives, bats, crossbows, none of them exist.

You get a tradgedy like this, and the first thing people do is go 'Herp a derp, let's ban guns!'

There's a reason he used a gun; because there so easy to get,and most effective! Almost anyone can just go and buy a gun, you have to make explosives. A bat wouldn't kill someone instantly like a gun, and with a few people you could wrestle it off him. There's literally nothing you can do if someone has a gun and you don't.

[Steevee]

(Original post by Ham22)
Guns are on the more efficient side of deadly weapons though aren't they. The man wasn't going to kill 12 and injure 60 (or whatever the figure is now) with a cross-bow, loading and reloading after each shot. Or with a knife, or with a baseball bat.

Who is to say?

He might not have gone for a mass murder. He might have spread attacks out over days. There are plenty of people that kill multiple people with knives. And it's easy enough to make simple explosives and chemical weapons that would injure just as many.

The point is, the stupid 'ban all guns' reaction, is just that, a stupid reaction. You have one sad incident and suddenly you want to remove fire arms from millions of law abiding citizens with every right to own them.

[shezshez]

You'll never change American society ever.

It would be just as easy here, if anybody so wanted they could go to a busy shopping centre and let fire. I'm actually surprised it doesn't happen more often.

[Steevee]

(Original post by manchesterunited15)
There's a reason he used a gun; because there so easy to get,and most effective! Almost anyone can just go and buy a gun, you have to make explosives. A bat wouldn't kill someone instantly like a gun, and with a few people you could wrestle it off him. There's literally nothing you can do if someone has a gun and you don't.

Clearly you know very little about these things.

You cannot just go and buy a gun in most US states. This guy wired up his home with booby traps, clearly he'd puyt some thought into this. In an enclosed environment you could very easily wrestle an Assault Rifle or Shotgun off somebody.

[manchesterunited15]

(Original post by Steevee)
Clearly you know very little about these things.

You cannot just go and buy a gun in most US states. This guy wired up his home with booby traps, clearly he'd puyt some thought into this. In an enclosed environment you could very easily wrestle an Assault Rifle or Shotgun off somebody.

No i'm not an expert on American law, but the fact is he got a gun legally. Can you honestly say that he still would have killed or injured about 90 people if he couldn't have legally got a gun?

[manchesterunited15]

(Original post by Steevee)
You have one sad incident and suddenly you want to remove fire arms from millions of law abiding citizens with every right to own them.

Yes. One.

[Cll_ws]

(Original post by Steevee)
Because explosives don't exist. Illegal guns don't exist. Knives, bats, crossbows, none of them exist.

You get a tradgedy like this, and the first thing people do is go 'Herp a derp, let's ban guns!'

Fact is, this happens more frequently in the countries where guns are readily available to anyone.
Why the hell would a single person need to legally buy 2 handguns, a shotgun and an assault rifle, along with 6000 rounds of ammo, in the space of 2 months?
For personal protection? give me a break.

Until American's snap out of this frame of mind that they're all in, where they see owning a gun incase you are required to protect yourself as a "right", then this is going to keep on happening.
We don't have gun crime on that scale here in the UK, I don't feel the need to own a gun to protect myself as I know that the likelihood of anybody I pass in the street having a gun on them is slim.

From what i've seen in the aftermath of these latest shootings, American's aren't going to support restricting gun laws anytime soon, so this will continue to happen.
They're right that it's "the person behind the gun" to blame, and a person willing to do something like this would have to be pretty deranged, but the difference between there and here is that when this deranged person does finally snap it's made so easy for him.

[BlueSparkleDust]

(Original post by ESPORTIVA)
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/20/why_..._more_auroras/

"Anybody in this country who wants to kill a lot of people in a crowded public space can do so fairly easily"

Wow, interesting article regarding the shooting in america, and the fact it could be happening everyday and its easy to do.

Whats your thoughts on this?

Yeah, I have always thought that could happen, even when I am in the cinema, during the film I always wonder, what if this happened? Where to run? And all that, but then again I am neurotic But I always thought that it would take something like this to trigger a response from the government, because sadly a lot of laws for our safety were reactionary creations so unless something bad happens, we are for now, at risk

[Politricks]

(Original post by Drewski)
Tbf, yes they do. Some Premier League games have viewing figures approaching half a billion.

Amazing, I never knew that so many around the world were actually interested in English football teams. Excuse my ignorance; I avoid any talk of football as much as I can, it's torturous.

My point was, the Premier League isn't as big as the Olympics, where the estimated number of viewers will be as much as 4 billion, and not to mention that London will be the hosts to the Israelis, Americans, Russians, and Indians - the favourite targets of any Islamic terrorist.

[KingMessi]

This is stupid sensationalism. Yes, of course cinema shootings are easy to do, in the same way that it'd be easy for most adult males - hell, one might argue 'adult humans' to cause some carnage in a public place. But is it likely? No. Most of the human population simply has no urge to do something of the sort. I for one certainly shan't be curtailing my cinema visits in case of any misanthropic moron happening to occasion the same showing as me.

[KingMessi]

(Original post by shezshez)
You'll never change American society ever.

It would be just as easy here, if anybody so wanted they could go to a busy shopping centre and let fire. I'm actually surprised it doesn't happen more often.

Because most humans don't have - or, rather, don't act upon - homicidal tendencies.

Incidentally, can we apply some reason to the gun law argument? Simply because something is seen as a 'right' or written into a 'constitution' simply does not mean that that issue is exempt from being changed. I personally think it is a ludicrously frivolous argument to suggest that simply because the right to bear arms is written into the constitution, that means that the law should not be changed. Of course, I am aware that an altering of the laws are unlikely to happen because of the near-impossibility of coming into office with an anti-gun stance.

[goape]

(Original post by zedbrar)
I can see the amount of news coverage that this story has gained encouraging other copy cat cinema shootings.

Yep just like if people see news coverage of strangled homeless people with red ribbons round them, this encourages copycat homeless murder with tying white ribbon round them.

[MagicNMedicine]

Why should Iran be banned from having nuclear weapons?

Its not nuclear weapons that kill people its sick people that give the orders to fire them.

Instead of banning nuclear weapons from Iran, we should ban sick people from Iran, or especially from the Iranian government.

[Leon Trotsky]

I wonder why they don't happen more often. Obviously it does happen in the US far more than anywhere else, but if it's so easy to buy a firearm and there are plenty of crowded public spaces where you're not going to be frisked, why doesn't it happen even more often than it does?

[AdvanceAndVanquish]

(Original post by KingMessi)
Because most humans don't have - or, rather, don't act upon - homicidal tendencies.

Incidentally, can we apply some reason to the gun law argument? Simply because something is seen as a 'right' or written into a 'constitution' simply does not mean that that issue is exempt from being changed. I personally think it is a ludicrously frivolous argument to suggest that simply because the right to bear arms is written into the constitution, that means that the law should not be changed. Of course, I am aware that an altering of the laws are unlikely to happen because of the near-impossibility of coming into office with an anti-gun stance.

Not sure if you know how difficult it is to change the US Constitution, even if a President and a whole bunch of other officials were elected on a specific promise to do so.