Gun attack at Batman film premiere in Denver (merged)

[Pinkie Brown]

I never understand how the 'gun lobby' and National Rifle Association is the States are so powerful.

What's the betting that they'll trot out the usual 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people' bollox

Every chance they'll spew out their usual poisonous propaganda about their historical right to bear arms that is in enshrined in the constitution.

A constitution that may have allowed guns during the wild west days is not suitable for a so called civilised country in the 21st Century. Its going to take a brave President to take on the backward morons of the gun lobby. Whether Obama has the balls to do it if he gets a second term remains to be seen? Whilst it may have been a hot potato subject to stay clear of, this incident may give him the impetus to attempt some stringent gun controls.

Certainly no chance should the Republican get elected.

 

[Woodchip]

They do in Canada too, but they don't go round shooting each other.

That because it is too cold for people to take their hands out there pockets for 9 months of the year.

 

[Triggaaar]

They do in Canada too, but they don't go round shooting each other.

That's because Canada is bigger, and there's no one in it. You very rarely see another person in Canada.

 

[Timbo]

I don't think it's as much to do with Americans being freely able to get guns as the American people being very, very odd.

Not too much different to the war mongering middle easterners that they're trying so hard to suppress.

 

[Surrey_Albion]

The right to bear arms is only slightly less ludicrous than the right to arm bears

 

[catfish]

If you oppose the right to bear arms the gun lobby label you as a commie.

 

[jonny.rainbow]

Every chance they'll spew out their usual poisonous propaganda about their historical right to bear arms that is in enshrined in the constitution.

A constitution that may have allowed guns during the wild west days is not suitable for a so called civilised country in the 21st Century. Its going to take a brave President to take on the backward morons of the gun lobby. Obama has the balls to do it if he gets a second term remains to be seen? Whilst it may have been a hot potato subject to stay clear of, this incident may give him the impetus to attempt some stringent gun controls.

Certainly no chance should the Republican get elected.

Is this the same Obama who looked happily on as 4 unarmed people including a woman were murdered with assault rifles during the state sanctioned assassination of Osama Bin Laden?

I won't hold my breath.

 

[Mellotron]

I don't think it's as much to do with Americans being freely able to get guns as the American people being very, very odd.

I'd argue it's a combo of the two.

 

[leigull]

Youngest victim was 3 months old

 

[JamesAndTheGiantHead]

It seems the only need to carry a gun is to protect yourself from other people with guns.

And perhaps bears.

 

[NickBHAFC18]

I think it has it pro's and con's, but firearms are just WAY to accessible in the states and their everywhere. Gun laws need to be tightened in the U.S., not banned as it would most likely bring uproar, but seriously tightened.

I'm glad I live in the UK where firearms aren't even nearly half accessible.

 

[Albumen]

Youngest victim was 3 months old

It might be a 12A but taking a 6 year old and a 3 month old to a midnight showing of a 3 hour film is a little weird isn't it?

 

[GingerBeerMan]

The right to bear arms is only slightly less ludicrous than the right to arm bears

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsMaN7mdSWs

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

A f***ed up young man with a grudge against society. No doubt bullied at school , abused as a kid and from a broken home. He snapped one day and that day was yesterday. If the people in this country had the same access to guns here, this sort of story in our society would be a daily occurence here.

Oh and do me a favour no one who was within 100 meters of Bin Laden was an innocent victim.

 

[SWCspider-man]

The right to bear arms is only slightly less ludicrous than the right to arm bears

An armed bear would be a massacre

 

[dingodan]

I never understand how the 'gun lobby' and National Rifle Association is the States are so powerful.

What's the betting that they'll trot out the usual 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people' bollox

DOH - people kill people...with guns

Historically, the British went over to the colonies and said "we are taking all your guns". The colonies said, "yeah? come and take them".

In the writing of the Constitution it was recognized that the people have a right to bare arms. This is protected because of the threat posed by governments, who have armies and lots of guns. It was felt, and still is, that a heavily armed government + a disarmed population will inevitably lead to tyranny.

And it is true, guns don't kill people, criminals kill people.

 

[Dowling93]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsMaN7mdSWs

I was gonna post that but thought I would check if somebody had already done it haha

 

[beorhthelm]

In the writing of the Constitution it was recognized that the people have a right to bare arms. This is protected because of the threat posed by governments, who have armies and lots of guns. It was felt, and still is, that a heavily armed government + a disarmed population will inevitably lead to tyranny.

And it is true, guns don't kill people, criminals kill people.

as someone once said, having the gun does help alot. yes this is historic, it made sence in 1787 when they feared a superpower would come along and take their land. today when they are the only superpower its dumb. isnt there a statistic like more people die of gunshots in the US each year than in all US involved wars since Veitnam?

 

[dingodan]

as someone once said, having the gun does help alot. yes this is historic, it made sence in 1787 when they feared a superpower would come along and take their land. today when they are the only superpower its dumb. isnt there a statistic like more people die of gunshots in the US each year than in all US involved wars since Veitnam?

They didn't fear a superpower coming along to take their land, they just fought off the King of England, who had come along to take their land. The first step in this attempt to take their land was an attempt to disarm them, which is quite logical.

The 2nd amendment was not just about invading armies, it was about domestic abuses as well, the king was the defacto domestic power until the revolution.

When guns are banned, criminals (who have no problem breaking the law) will gladly own a firearm. Law abiding citizens will make sure they do not own a firearm. If you want some interesting statistics look the relationship between gun laws and gun violence. This is not as clear cut as it first might seem.

This makes for an interesting read: Gun Control's Twisted Outcome - Reason.com

Also: Handgun crime 'up' despite ban

 

[beorhthelm]

This makes for an interesting read: Gun Control's Twisted Outcome - Reason.com

its an interesting read if you want to see a stawman argument is constructed to show a flawed point, seems to be based on the mis-belief that no guns means no crime. reality is there is in UK gun related crimes are tiny number. London theres around 0.4-0.6 per 100k population, where as in US there is on average 2.3 gun murders per 100k and a staggering 44 gun assults per 100k. thats a factor of 100. pretty clear cut to me.