Slashdot Mirror
12 Dead, 50 Injured at The Dark Knight Rises Showing In Colorado
beaverdownunder sends the sad news that a gunman opened fire on an audience watching the new Batman movie early this morning, killing 12 and wounding 50 others. The shooting took place in Aurora, Colorado, and the suspect was arrested by police.
"Witnesses told KUSA that the gunman kicked in an emergency exit door and threw a smoke bomb into the darkened theater before opening fire. One movie-goer, who was not identified, told KUSA the gunman was wearing a gas mask. Some people in the audience thought the thick smoke and gunfire was a special effect accompanying the movie, police and witnesses said."
Isn't brown people, or gay people, or Muslims. It's crazy. Crazy is the root cause behind most of mankind's problems, be that war or criminal behavior or just everyday sociopathic behavior.
We need a "war on crazy", free mental healthcare for all and easing the ability for family and friends to compel treatment, coupled with increased government spending on treatment for mental illnesses.
Except there's more money to be made in cleaning up after other people's crazy (defense and police and corrections spending) than there is in trying to prevent it. So it'll never happen.
My condolences to all those affected.
In Israel, believe it or not, we have very strict gun control laws. We also have few massacres, and the ones that have happened have mostly been religious crazies attacking another group, which is a different kind of terrorism than this sort of massacre. I've lived in the US and grew up part of my childhood in America, and came back to America to work for many years as well.
What is interesting is that in Israel, we have thousands of people walking around not just with guns, but the most fearsome guns in the world usually. It's rare that I'm not on the train or a bus where someone isn't at least 3 seats from me carrying some breed of machine gun. You would think with all the 19 year old kids walking around with guns and often pissed off at this country and being in the army, we'd have more problems with shootings like this one, but we rarely do. It's not that it doesn't ever happen, but the gun culture here is very different than the US.
Firstly, in the army you are taught that a gun kills and you need to take your gun seriously. When you first are issued your gun and from that point on, you're not allowed to let it leave your sight ever. Technically you don't need your gun with you at all times, but you are definitely responsible for your own gun. If someone uses your gun or steals your gun, you're most likely going to prison and going to be in some serious trouble. So much fear is put into people about this, that most people will take their guns with them literally everywhere. It is not uncommon to see soldiers on leave going to the beach with their guns still around their shoulders. You are also taught to keep your safety on and to carry it without bullets loaded, unless of course you are on duty.
Therefore, we have entire generations of people who know how to use guns, and often use them well. They also understand gun safety, that a gun kills, and is only for last resort. Even if you are on duty, you often have to use rubber bullets first, and aim for the legs, never the head or heart. You can get in serious trouble for even following orders but shooting poorly at someone who is firing live ammo or fire bombs at you. People don't realize how much sometimes it can take to let IDF soldiers actually use proper ammunition (this often happens at the expense of the safety of our soldiers).
It's an interesting effect to see how serious people take guns here and how reluctant they are to use them. The media paints other pictures. One might also believe that massacres don't happen like this one as often because so many people have guns that you probably wouldn't last long. If it's not a soldier that gets you, it's a security guard or police.
One last point as well is that when we enter almost any populated building such as a mall or movie theater, we always go through metal detectors and sometimes a pat down or x-ray machine. And yet this process isn't like in the US where they screen so heavily and still don't find. We screen a lot lighter, but find lots, but we rely more on the human factor of looking for signs such as nervous twitches, sweat, and profiling of threats. In my time working the border, we found bombs on pregnant women and in ambulances all kinds of ridiculous things. It's a tough thing for everyone involved whether it is our own citizens or screening people entering and leaving our borders. It's sometimes humiliating for both involved (trust me, anyone who has worked guard duty and done searches in the IDF doesn't want to be doing it), but it keeps us safer than we otherwise be.
I hope the US doesn't become more of a police state. I also hope that people can learn more gun responsibility. Something seems like it needs to change as either an outright ban, or a different approach to all of it than exists now.
Because there totally haven't been ANY school shootings in Europe in the last 10 years.
Except for France, Italy, Norway, Greece, Germany, Hungary, Finalnd, the Netherlands or Russia. But they don't count, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting#Europe
Nor have there been non-school massacres in Europe.
http://www.expatica.com/be/news/local_news/mass-shootings-in-europe_195344.html
If you look at The Communist Manifesto, it's a pretty good idea. But in reality, it doesn't work (due to factors which Marx didn't realise were important). So let's forget about rhetoric, and just look at the facts.
There's bugger all conclusive evidence either way. The Swiss have lots of guns, and similar crime rates to their neighbors. The US and Canada both have a lot of guns, and crime is mostly driven by socioeconomic factors.
There's some evidence that if you have legal guns, a few more women get raped, and a few less get murdered. Homicide against males remains pretty constant.
There's basically not factual reason for favoring either side - it's all just political bullshit.
Personally, I favor banning the kind of weapons which can be used for these kind of attacks - semi autos. Mass murders aren't just bad because of the number of deaths, but because they are a massive distraction for the police. Security measures against this kind of attacks are insanely expensive and ineffective. Counter-terrorism is probably the only thing more futile than trying to stop mass murders through anything other than gun control.
AC, you are going to get thrown in jail. First of all, it is illegal to carry a concealed firearm in any federal building. You may carry one on Federal property, if your state allows it, but not inside of any building. Secondly, the state of Florida does NOT allow you to disregard those signs. If a building has a conspiciously posted sign barring the concealment of weapons, then it is a felony (minimum 3 year sentence) to conceal a weapon inside that building. It can be a house, a church, an office building, whatever. It does not matter. You have to follow the wishes of the property owner. Failure to do so is tresspass, and since you are armed while committing a trespass, there are stiff penalties.
I highly recommend you read this book about Florida Gun Laws before you conceal a weapon again. And no, I am not in any way affiliated with Amazon or the author.
Because those countries tend to have lower crime rates overall.
Years ago, the UN did a survey (they I can't find freely available anymore, unfortunately) of every country in the world. The correltaed "non-suicide gun-related deaths per capita" to "guns ownership per capita" along with a bunch of other figures. Based on those numbers, there was no correlation. For example: European countries with mandatory gun ownership had comparable non-suicide gun-related deaths per capita had similar crime rates to countries where guns were rare.
So were the laws working? Mostly yes: gun ownership per capita was lower in countries with stricter laws.
So what *does* correlate fewer non-suicide gun-related deaths? Better education. Lower overall crime.
It was a fascinating set of statistics and I wish I could link to it so that everyone could read it.
Pepper spray is actually a great tool for mugging people. Dark alley/park/etc, fewer other people (typical mugging place). Spray someone in the face, grab what you want and run. They probably won't be able to ID you at all if you plan it just a little bit. And best of all, it appeals to those of us with somewhat of a conscience because it's going to be non-lethal in 99.99% of cases (whereas just brandishing a kitchen knife means someone could get seriously hurt).
Not in favor of the ban, just saying it's not as purely-defensive as it may at first seem. After all, even a motorcycle helmet can do a lot of damage if you swing it at someone.
I used to be pretty staunchly in favor of banning all guns. These days, my stance is what I consider a bit more practical and well-thought out. I'm not for banning guns completely, but I am for measures such as requiring training and evaluation that has to be periodically repeated before issuing a permit to allow people to legally have guns, implementing methods of tracking guns, requiring all guns sold adhere to certain standards of safety, and restricting the sale and distribution of the types of assault weapons that are designed for killing massive numbers of people quickly. Because the fact is that I'm MUCH more afraid of well-meaning--but stupid and untrained moron--hurting or killing me with a gun than some nutjob opening fire in a theater.
I come from a very different background, where in general I feel that people should be armed with just about anything they want in terms of weapons (a private tank? Sure, just sign on the line and make sure you pay taxes on it). I also see that the right to bear arms is an important component of protecting our freedoms as it also places an important check on the reach of government when armed citizens can push back against would be government officers if they seriously step out of line. The government should be afraid of an armed citizenry, but the fear is because that government is kept in check by that citizenry from doing stupid things.
On the other hand, I am becoming more and more convinced about the need for firearm training for those who have access to them. Classes that teach firearm training are fairly easy to find if you really want them, and a good firearms instructor can not only show you the proper way to use those devices without hurting yourself in the process, but you also learn very quickly that where you point a gun, regardless of the fact that you may think it is unloaded or even if your hand is nowhere near the trigger, you should expect that the gun will go off at any point with a bullet and strike whatever happens to be in front of that muzzle. NEVER point a gun at somebody unless your goal is to literally kill them in hopefully a self-defense purpose. Don't screw around and joke about such things too and be extremely serious about how you use firearms because they are serious devices that can cause a whole bunch of damage if misused.
Sure, other kinds of equipment (notably automobiles) can also kill people if misused (the accused assailant in the theater could have simply crashed his car into the theater at 70 mph instead of using a gun and caused nearly as much damage). I remember kids that screwed around in shop classes when I was growing up, and ended up injuring themselves on some of the power tools, so I know stupid people do stupid shit with dangerous equipment simply because they want to joke around. Real life isn't a video game and you don't get a second life if you screw up.
All this said, there is even a constitutional provision for the training and enforcement of firearm regulations, and that would be through the use of state-chartered militias. For myself, I would even be fine if the only people who could possess firearms would be regular members of the militias, at least in America. This is not some group of nut jobs who go off to the woods and run around in uniforms of their own design and pretend the end of the world is here or planning for a nuclear holocaust, but rather legitimate groups of ordinary citizens who receive proper training on firearms from skilled instructors and are part of an organization which is formally recognized by a state government.
I'll also note that a state militia does not need to be the National Guard, does not need to have the dual oath loyalties that come from guard service, and in theory doesn't even need to be taxpayer supported. Members of these militias don't even necessarily need to be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It could be groups like a neighborhood watch or something else similar, but it could b