Batman Theater Slaughter: Would Gun Control Laws Have Prevented it?
After every major shooting, the gun control advocates can be counted on to ask "NOW can't you see the need for gun control?" But does gun control really make sense?
Would gun control have prevented this slaughter? I doubt it. Guns will continue to be available for the person determined to get one, and the kind of person who does something like the Colorado movie theater shooting would be determined.
The problem isn't the weapon, it's the intent, and there are plenty of other ways to kill. There are even plenty of ways to kill en masse. A bomb brought into the theater could have killed more as could an incendiary device. In other contexts, there's poisoning food or water.
Is the cause of gun violence really the availability of guns or is it the nature of the people who use them? Other countries have similar or greater rates of gun possession (I believe both Israel and Switzerland have higher rates), but they don't have nearly the rate of gun violence.
The difference in gun violence between Switzerland and the United States comes down to the difference between the Swiss people and Americans, and I don't see Americans changing in any fundamental way anytime soon.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on -
Platitudes like that sound good - ask Patrick Henry - until, as in Nazi Germany, the government begins executing dissidents.
I know, it could never happen here - but then I never believed the intrusions allowed by the misnomed Patriot Act could happen here either.
(And before you correct me, as is your inclination, I'm quite aware that misnomed is not a legitimate word - I'm using poetic license.)
-
-
Permalink Reply by Robert Fletcher on -
Gun ownership seems to be a freedom that makes everyone less free. That's certainly the way I feel in the US. In Australia I have never been advised to avoid certain areas. Admittedly most of my visits to the US are to Texas :)
-
-
Permalink Reply by Suzanne Olson-Hyde on -
Yahooo! Six more bite the dust - Another cowboy by the name of Wade Michael Page - an army vet - has massacred a group of six people - including a policeman, in Wisconsin.
The Wild West is alive and well.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Richard E. Robertson on
-
So, to prohibit gun ownership and effectively regulate them, Australia had to become more of a police state.
-
Permalink Reply by Suzanne Olson-Hyde on
-
No - Politicians have common sense, and want the best for people, so they can go about their business, without being shot. Australians pushed it's politicians to legislate against certain guns, and it became law. Australia doesn't have the same mentality. America with it's war against the Native American, it's war against the English, it's Civil War etc.etc. Australia has never had this amount of conflict - therefore, don't have a 'must have a gun' mentality.
-
-
Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on
-
Just possibly, Dear Sweet Lady (and I KNOW I'm gonna catch hell for this) that's because of the differences in the history of our two countries - when England first started dumping its convicts into Australia, the last thing they wanted to do, was arm them.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Unseen on -
@Suzanne
When someone robs a convenience store in Australia, what do they use? Harsh language?
@ archaeopteryx
LOL
-
-
Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on
-
Shhhh
- she's asleep, you'll wake her, it's nighttime down under --RE: "When someone robs a convenience store in Australia, what do they use? Harsh language?"
Nothing so subtle - a croc on a chain.
-
-
Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on
-
What did I predict? This was waiting for me in my message box when I awoke this morning --
(Some Australian requires translation - "pomme" is Aussie for British)
Subject: It's not going to work!!!
------------
Don't you "Dear Sweet Lady me", Ha - in actual fact, very few people were actually armed, including pomme soldiers. They all had to find food and water, with the aborigines watching on, and laughing at these fools who had dropped in, and couldn't look after themselves. The convicts just had to run away, and the aborigines looked after them.
Whereas America had it's war, then another, then another ad nauseum.
Convicts were used to a harsh life in the 'Mother' country, and were already starving, so by the time they got to Australia, they would eat anything, and did :(
English solders weren't very bright, and mean to boot, so the Aborigines were on the side of the convicts, well, for a short time, at least. Yep, still no rampant gun use - and I still think lack of wars gives one a different attitude to guns. Soldiers had muskets, and quite often blew up in the face of a soldier. Not pleasant. -
-
Permalink Reply by Arcus on -
To illustrate a little: To a Norwegian even the Aussie system seems almost like "American conditions" (which is bad by definition), but this may be an outdated belief.
The screws of the law must be tightened such that any psychologically unstable half-wit can't just walk into a store and get an assault weapon and ammo. Gun control is about creating certain hurdles and hoops one has to go through to be armed. Much like traffic laws are in place to avoid pandemonioum on the roads by regulating behavior, gun control laws creates a healthier weapons culture by regulating behavior.
-
What's new today
Forum
Why do atheists ask for so much proof to believe in God?
Started by Mercedes in Welcome to Think Atheist. Last reply by Gregg R Thomas 1 minute ago. 376 Replies 0 Likes
Blog Posts
How Jesus' Views on Marriage Proves Yahweh's Laws are NOT Absolute OR Jesus is Mistaken
Posted by Cathy Cooper on May 17, 2013 at 10:00am 3 Comments 0 Likes
Events
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
