Obviously, this was caused because of guns. It certainly had nothing to do with an emotionally unstable person.

...or the fact that had someone else been carrying, an innocent man may still be alive today, and a three year old kid may not have had to grow up without a father.

Alternatively, there'd be two dead bodies instead of one.

oh look, an anecdote

in a country of 300 million people this will certainly be a decisive piece of statistical data in the debate on gun control

Yeah, compared to the hypothetical anecdotal evidence touted by the gun lobby centered around "too bad everybody doesn't carry guns, the world would be a harmonious place."

But of course we don't hear president eden then.

Then again if I didn't write this we wouldn't have heard from the great PE and his ant Santa boner.

Now on with the flame fest.

"Skittles (428 )
07:56 PM
+1
...or the fact that had someone else been carrying, an innocent man may still be alive today, and a three year old kid may not have had to grow up without a father."

Oh the irony...

"Skittles (428 )
07:52 PM
+1
Obviously, this was caused because of guns. It certainly had nothing to do with an emotionally unstable person."

Without the gun the results would have been thoroughly buttery movie theater seats and at worst a fat lip. Yes the gun did cause this.

It's true, I have never seen PE post in this forum at all, for any purpose, except when you were posting and he had the opportunity to attack you. Certainly he has never engaged in a political argument before.

If I didn't know better semck I'd think you were being sarcastic.

"Yeah, compared to the hypothetical anecdotal evidence touted by the gun lobby centered around "too bad everybody doesn't carry guns, the world would be a harmonious place.""

no one like that posts stuff like that here, or i've missed it. sorry if i've missed it

exception: if sbvyl or krellin said it i'm not sorry, i don't read half their shit lmao

anyway yes, it goes both ways, you are right

I'm, PE please refer to skittles post...

That should be "um PE" i am not PE

ehh. it's in context of your use of an anecdote. neither point (that gun control makes things better/worse in Anecdotal Situation Here) holds water with me

if you want to count that go ahead, i agree, who cares if it would be better if they had guns in Anecdotal Situation Here, policy has to be evaluated across the board

"i am not PE"

that would make my raging anti-Santa boner really awkward

My anecdote happened and I get a finger wagged in my face, the go-to NRA response is a hypothetical anecdote as posted in all its glory by mr skittles and that is considered acceptable, not just by you but by pretty much every gun supporter that uses it ad nauseum.

let me clarify

if skittles had started a thread about, say, a story of an old granny who shot a burglar threatening her in self-defense and had said that if liberals had their way, granny would be dead

and you posted this story in the thread as a counter, saying that it's all anecdotes

then i'd be on your side

i just don't see gun rights people starting threads or moving conversation that way on here. and again i'm sure i'm missing it because you wouldn't say it's happening here if it weren't, so sorry if i missed it (again excluding krellin/sbvyl because do i need to explain)

But yes, this is in no way an attempt to define the overall tendencies of gun owners in this country, instead it was meant as a critique of the old aurora "if only we carried guns everywhere" trope.

ok, i agree with you then, sorry for misreading your intent in the op

"instead it was meant as a critique of the old aurora "if only we carried guns everywhere" trope. "

But isn't that a statistical trope? I mean, there may be those who think it would ONLY save lives, and NEVER cost them, but I doubt anybody sophisticated at all is making such an argument.

"Oh the irony..."

The man pulled a weapon with the intent to kill someone for no reason. If one of the two had to die, wouldn't it be better if it wasn't the innocent person, if that was possible? Alternatively, what if the man had decided not to stop shooting. Wouldn't it be better if someone in the movie theater was armed so they would be able to stop the killing at 1 or 2 instead of having 12 people dead? Surely, this scenario could never happen, especially not at a Batman movie.

"Without the gun the results would have been thoroughly buttery movie theater seats and at worst a fat lip. Yes the gun did cause this."

The man felt the need to carry a weapon. He then pulled the weapon and used it to kill a man for no reason. Had guns been illegal (and assuming the man didn't have an illegal firearm). He very well may have been carrying a knife instead, and pulled that out and stabbed a man to death. Would it then be the knife's fault?

At what point does the fault of such acts fall on the individual who commits them, not on the tool they use to so?

I tend to agree with Skittles on this one. A person who feels the need to carry a weapon will carry a weapon of some sort. If a gun wouldn't be availible he'd carry a knife or something else. Violence is to be treated trough better education and not by pretending that guns are to blame.

For those who don't know me, I live in Israel and work as a shooting instructor in a civilian shoting range. The gun laws in Israel are so strict that I, being a certified firearms instructor with a heavy military record am not allowed to carry a firearm or buy one. Thats right, if you are a civilian in Israel your chances to get a firearm are next to zero unless you live beyond the green border.
Anyhow, the fact that weapons here aren't legalized there are plenty of guns in the black market. Anyone who really wants to arm himself will find a way to do it, and from what statistics tell me violence is rising drastically, while the gun control laws become more draconic with every passing year.
If there anything to learn from this - is that guns aren't the reason for violence. People are. Guns are merely tools which may always be aquired by this way or another.

'...or the fact that had someone else been carrying, an innocent man may still be alive today, and a three year old kid may not have had to grow up without a father.'

So you want everyone to have a gun, and yet 'an emotionally unstable person.' is also the problem? Surely if every emotionally unstable person had access to fire arms the problem could solve itself.

'I tend to agree with Skittles on this one. A person who feels the need to carry a weapon will carry a weapon of some sort. ' - that's a fair point, and i live in a society where most people don't carry weapons (though i recall america being much the same) and the people who do are carrying non-lethal weapons like mace or a taser. If you live in a peaceful society where nobody feels the need to carry a gun then everyone is safer. Guns are a tool which make it easy to kill someone, and making it easy for people - in general - to access guns, makes it easier for people who want to kill someone to manage it.

'Anyone who really wants to arm himself will find a way to do it, and from what statistics tell me violence is rising drastically' - actually as far as i know, violent crime has been on the decrease in most parts of the world. But if you have some actual data, then feel free to share!

@Skittles and Hot Fuzz - you are, of course, correct the gun is not to blame for any shooting. But you seem to think that if an object cannot be to blame, it shouldn't be banned. The problem is that we cannot ban people who could shoot someone so the only way to prevent the shooting is to remove his weapon. I agree that he could use other weapons but it is also possible to ban people carrying knifes, knuckle dusters and the like to the local cinema.

It's not heroin's fault that people OD on it, why is that banned?

This side of the pond, the right to bear arms seems as silly as the right to arm bears.

It's an outdated amendment that is interpreted by everyone differently according to how they want to interpret it.

Americans have a perverse LOVE of guns. If they were banned, one would not blithely reach for another weapon, such as a knife.

These crackpots equate "carrying a gun" and "freedom".

They are, mostly, beyond help.

If guns kill people then forks make people fat and cars make people speed! Poor fat jack became victim of the terrible fork! We should band forks...... Or at the very least make them smaller. And poor John who speeds every day got in a car wreck. We should band cars..... Or at least make them go 10 miles an hour. Who cares for old laws! Its time to stand up and make our lives better!

@Ezra Willis,
The asinine thing about your argument, repeated ad nauseum by the gun rights crowd, is that the other objects in your comparison serve other purposes. Vehicles transport people, forks are for eating. Their misuse results in illness or injury. In contrast, the intended purpose of a gun is to injure. When used properly, it results in death. A more apt comparison would be, say, cigarettes.

@Maple,
"Americans have a perverse LOVE of guns."

Once again, you paint with a broad brush. You have no sense of nuance.