I find it hard to believe that Canada wouldn't have access to a load of guns, I would imagine that the border with the US is pretty porous and it's also a large area for border controls to cover.

Sure you are. Unless you think people with zero safety training and no background checks should be free to build unregistered arsenals of howitzers and helicopter-mounted machine guns, you support some kind of gun control.

Never really understood this reasoning.
If anything if someone breaks into your house and you put an extra gun into the mix I would have thought all that would do is escalate the tension & make things more unsafe, not protect you.

If I was living in the USA now, how easy would it be for me to buy a gun? Do I just walk into a hardware store and provide them with some documentation and then I get registered etc and then they sell me the gun? Also is it the same in every state?

Almost all illegal guns used here are smuggled in from the US. Only a small number of them are actually registered and legally owned.

The laws are very different from state to state, as is the attitude toward guns.

Never realized that, but I guess if you want the gun for possible criminal activities you wouldn't want to be registered.

That's interesting, for example what are considered gun pro-states and which states are more opposed to them?

When I think pro-gun, I usually think of places like Texas, Louisiana, Arizona or Montana. When I think anti-gun, I think of places like New York, New Jersey, Illinois or California. With few exceptions, the split is a conservative vs. liberal state split or an urban vs. rural state split.

Hip Hop Bunny's from Montana and he likes guns.

Now when you say liberal and conservative states, which one of these are anti-gun?

Yep, I think the majority of people in Montana do. It's a conservative, rural state.

Liberal states generally have more gun restrictions and anti-gun sentiment than conservative states.

So these would vote Democrat?

These questions might seem obvious to you and a lot on here, but we in the UK see little difference between Republicans and Democrats and often fail to see too much of a difference (even though I know there must be)

Yes, liberal states tend to vote democrat, while conservative states tend to vote republican.

If somebody walks in to a theater and shoots people eating a Burger King happy meal is that going to be debated as well?

I'm neutral on the gun battle. I just hate how it HAS to be a topic for concern when something bad happens. it's like our country as a whole goes "Well we don't like guns but we'll just ignore the fact until somebody kills a bunch of people".

Make up your ****ing minds USA.

How they match with UK parties.

Conservatives =Republicans
Liberals =Democrats
Labour =They're too left wing for you guys:laughing:

I guess if I lived there I'd be a Democrat voter.

Heh. I think our republicans are probably quite a bit more right wing than your conservatives.

You obviously don't remember Margaret Thatcher then, the iron lady. She chewed up commies and the working classes for breakfast. She was loved in London and the South East and depised in the rest of the country. Hell, she even called Pinochet a great friend of the UK.

Of course I remember Margaret Thatcher. She may have been really conservative by British standards but as far as know she never sought to abolish universal health care or pushed any kind of traditional religious agenda so I still think she's as far right as the typical republican politician.

That makes a lot of sense. "kill me and my family, I'll even hand over my gun, I just don't want this to escalate." Bam, you're dead without even trying to fight back because you just didn't want things to "escalate". That's just being too damn passive. Relying on your ability to beg for your life probably isnt the best idea.

I understand why people are for gun control, what I don't understand is how anyone could think its going to stop incidents like this from happening. It's going to create an ever bigger black market for guns and put even more power into the hands of criminals.

Do you think that's what's happened in countries with stricter gun laws? I was under the impression they have much lower gun crime rates than the US.

Also I suppose there's the consequences of the law regarding to protecting oneself - keeping a gun to protect you from thieves is one thing, but there are cases in England like the farmer sent to prison for murder because he pushed a ladder away from his window a thief was using to climb into his house and killed him. You might think that's an isolated case of terrible judicial decision making, but it's not.

Here, to perhaps apologise to Jansz for generalising about his country earlier (sorry!) this is where I wouldn't mind a bit more of the US tendency to favour the "get the fuck off my land" over the fucking human rights of the thief. I really think that they ought to lose the protection of the law when they break it but they don't. However, I think this is a whole world removed from the issue of the man shooting innocent people.

Also picking up on Unknown Soldier's point about the comparison of UK/US political parties, I really would be inclined to agree with Jansz that our conservatives are nowhere near as right wing as the republican party. Especially the current coalition which is very liberal, they still put considerable financial support the state education and healthcare and many other aspects show a fairly left in tendency (in US terms).
The main difference between Labour and the Conservatives at the moment (don't misunderstand me - they both have innumerable faults) is that the Labour party favour spending as a mechanism to solve the country's deficit, the Conservatives favour austerity. If I might be allowed a small personal moan, why must the conservatives go about making life so much more miserable for us working classes and middle classes, axing childcare benefits marooning single mothers, making students pay through the nose for tuition fees and raise taxes for everyone except them, whilst the very wealthy remain barely affected because that's where the conservative support comes from.
I know it gets very boring hearing the same complaints from everyone, but dear god I'm fed up of this country's wealthy being appointed MPs when they reach a certain weight, or whatever name they've invented for that system.
I hate the fact that civil servants like the head of the city council get knighthoods for getting the job as a "pat on the back".

In California, you can't buy a gun with a felony in your records. There's also a certain wait period I think. It definitely varies from state to state. In Texas you can get one with your whiskey at the gas station with no background checks. Or so I've heard.

Recent Conservative and Labour governments have been far more moderate in their policies and now adopt a more middle of the road approach in general. I was referring historically to how the Conservatives were right wing and how Labour were very left wing. Both parties had very distinctive power bases of support. In the 1980s, the gulf between the two parties was huge.

wow. That's stupid ****.

Reminds me of reading bob Dylan's chronicles where talks about how people were invading his home in Woodstock, climbing on the roof, breaking in. The local sheriff told him that if anyone fell off his roof they could sue him. How ridiculous is that?

I'm not sure about anywhere else, but here in Texas you have the right to use deadly force to protect yourself from unwanted trespassers if you feel threatened. If someone breaks into my house at night and they have a weapon, bet your ass I'm shooting that bastard. It's simple, don't break into someone's house if you don't want to get shot like you rightfully should.

I agree completely.

Pro-gun owners also always bring up shop owners needing guns for armed robberies. Wouldn't it be safer for them if they didn't have guns, and the robbers knew they wouldn't? Then their guard wouldn't be up and they wouldn't be jumping the gun (no pun intended) and shooting the shop owner because he has a gun, or cause they even might think he has a gun (regardless of if he does or not). Point is most armed robbers are there to rob, not kill, and the last thing they want is a murder warrant out on them. If someone is actually out to kill, they will probably do it in a fashion where you wouldn't have time to react in self defense anyways.

So I've never ever subscribed to this self defense argument. To me, the second amendment is a dated amendment from a time where there was rightful paranoia that Americans had over the overbearing British. At that point, it was understandable they'd want to be prepared should a coup take place. Now that we have a systematic system of checks and balances it seems nigh impossible for someone to seize power and turn our country into a tyranny, regardless of if the citizens are armed or not.

Most of these points have probably already been made but I haven't bothered to go through the rest of the thread yet.

Well I suppose I could go for your macho way of dealing with things but fortunately for me due to the advent of home insurance for fire, theft & flood that means I don't have to act like John McClane and get involved in running gun battles to keep my LCD TV.
And to be honest even if it wasn't available I don't think there is a single possession in my home that's more important than saving my own life.

I saw the film at midnight. Disturbing to consider the shared excitement and expectation for some harmless fun. Thoughts go out to the victims and their families.

I do wish the best for the families who their lives. My heart and prayers to them. They are the ones who are in major pain.

I saw it last night at an imax theatre and it certainly ran through my mind, there must have been over 200 people there, the casualties would be huge! I feel so bad for the victims losing their life too quickly. If I'm typing like I'm foreign it's because I'm using an on screen keyboard!

And yet the more conservative states have the less crime it seems.. Then again, the less populated states seem to have the less crime where the more popular ones like New York and California have the highest..

California Crime Rates 1960 - 2010

California..

And here's a more Libertarian state.. Kentucky..

Kentucky Crime Rates 1960 - 2010

There appears to be more theft, rape and more people getting killed in car accidents than mass murder and most people who do get murdered it often involves a case that someone was getting mugged, raped or was attempting a robbery where someone got killed..

Agree with bolded, and I think that's all there is to be said about it.

Don't forget though that they are also the states with the most gun restrictions, we might be doing more harm than good in those more populated states, notice that crime has gone up over the years as guns have been outlawed in those states, even as the population barely changes, but there is also more laws to break, more things are illegal in today's society..

Example; the drug cartels were a result of the war on drugs, the war on drugs and prohibition turned more people into hardened criminals than it did doing anything good for them, rather than having family, friends and churches solve these social medical problems. We send more people to jail than any other country..

When you look at the charts, California hit a peak of 4,000 in the early 90's and from there crime went down at a steady pace.. I don't think it makes much of a difference if you outlaw guns or not, people will still commit crimes, strap bombs to themselves, or get them smuggled in.. Tons of people were killed in a Norway bombing, it can happen anywhere..

What is wrong with you people? You just want to let people push you around as long as things aren't escalated? When someone is robbing you At gunpoint or threatening you, things have already been escalated enough. I've been robbed. At some point you stop being such a ****in pussy and you get tired of people pushing you around. At some point you have to stand up for yourself.

One of the things that sort of gave me hope was this.

This is what I was saying earlier in the thread. People can determine whether or not you're insane fairly well. If there was a reference check while buying a gun, that included a family member, I'd bet you find a lot less crimes of this nature occurring.

I think that probably depends on how you frame the statistics I guess, because the state with the highest murder rate in the US is Louisiana, which also happens to be a conservative state with loose law guns. In fact if you look at the top ten with the highest murder rates...

1. Louisiana
2. Maryland
3. Missouri
4. Mississippi
5. New Mexico
6. Arizona
7. South Carolina
8. Nevada
9. Georgia
10. Alabama

...it's mostly conservative states with loose gun laws.

(data from here)


"Not being a pussy" doesn't strike me as a very good argument in favor of owning a gun. I've lived in several high-crime neighborhoods in my life, including the one I live in right now, and have certainly had my share of scary run-ins with people, but I can't think of any of those situations that would have been improved in any way if I were packing heat.

please understand that in no way shape or form am i on either side of this

but a question.....

had Colorado passed a right to carry law...as in one similar to the state i live in...Nevada....where you have to go through extensive background checks, take several knowledge classes, pass live knowledge of firing a gun tests (i'm sure there is a real name for this :) ) and pay a shitload of permit fees (per year)

could this situation have been lessened and or completely avoided?

perhaps this guy would have never taken the risk had he known that there is a good chance that one or more people in that theater are carrying weapons

again i'm not pro or anti gun and or control....but i do have a few friends who are very into guns and have said permits and are all very responsible good people

I'm no expert, but believe Colorado has very loose gun laws already and you can get a permit to carry there—none of which helped lessen this situation. In fact, the ease of buying guns in Colorado might have made it easier for the killer to arm himself the way he did.

But he also made bombs. So what does it matter if he had a gun?

Well, we can debate parallel universes all we want but the fact is none of his bomb-making hurt anyone but his shooting of guns did.

do they?

i was not really sure.....some pretty mixed information on the subject online.....i went off a list that said they were writing a law....

i suppose that maybe Batman dorks at midnight might not come off as the biggest threat in the world

you make a very valid point on the making it easier....he was "sane", not criminal record, and of age

Yeah but you have to look at this in context. All of these states have relatively small populations that artificially inflate their murder rate, with the exception of Georgia, that most big cities in the U.S. surpass in terms of people murdered or injured by gun violence. In this country, places like Chicago, Baltimore, and D.C. have more people killed due to gun violence than most of those states will in total. So far, the city of Chicago has had over twice as many people killed (228) this year alone than the entire state of Alaska had in 2011, yet the murder rate in the latter is nearly 3 times higher. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, with handgun bans and automatic/semi-automatic bans in place for the better part of the last decade. So then why do we consistently rank among the most violent cities in the country? People will kill each other regardless of whether the laws are strict or lax. There already is a huge illegal gun market, and further restricting the supply only serves to fuel that market. It's kind of like you're damned if you do, damned if you don't.