12 killed in Colorado shooting at Dark Knight Rises premiere - Part 2

[Hotwire]

I agree with the suing thing. Even living here, I don't understand it.

As for the gun thing, it's not like we can walk into any Quickie Mart and walk out with an Uzi.
All of the guns I have bought, I fill out 3 pages of paperwork. The gunshop (seller) makes a call to do a background check on me. Once I pass the background check, I bought the gun. He takes the paperwork and I believe the ATF gets the forms along with the serial number of the gun I bought.

Yet, guns purchased at gun shows from private sellers do not require background checks or any other regulations in 33 out of 50 states.

 

[mrvlknight21]

Thats how these debates usually work.

Im very anti-abortion, but I have NEVER heard birth control in general referred to as abortion.

 

[Darthphere]

Im very anti-abortion, but I have NEVER heard birth control in general referred to as abortion.

You must avoid listening to politicians,

 

[Kelly]

Im very anti-abortion, but I have NEVER heard birth control in general referred to as abortion.

I think a better example would be in my case....

I am Pro-Choice....and immediately when people see that they think...Pro-Abortion....when in fact, if it were "my" decision....I would not have an abortion, I simply do not think that my choice has to be everyone's choice. Also, I am against late term abortions...but, again, as soon as I say I am Pro-Choice.....I immediately get put into the category of Pro-Abortion.

 

[mrvlknight21]

Yet, guns purchased at gun shows do not require background checks or any other regulations in 33 out of 50 states.

See...this is exactly what I am talking about regarding misinformation.

What you said is ONLY true if you are buying from a private individual, not a gun dealer. And that is exactly the way it is in Georgia anyways. I can sell a gun to anyone legally as long as they show me a valid Ga driver's license. In fact, I have sold and purchased a few guns this way personally (at my residence).

Just FYI, Ive been to about 5 gun shows this year and all combined, I think there was 1 private individual selling his own firearms (which does not require a background check, only that the person proves he is a Georgia resident) versus HUNDREDS of dealers that DO require the background check.

This is exactly the kind of stuff that has been frustrating me in this thread. I have complained about this several times now. Please guys, please, ask questions, do research or something before posting an blatantly incorrect statement that is misleading.

 

[superpower]

Again...I don't believe that one person on this thread has said "Give up guns...", "Ban all guns..." etc....

Yet that keeps coming up...

I did say that though but it was a rhetorical question so that I could answer it for those who were thinking it..

Sorry if I offended

 

[Kelly]

I did say that though but it was a rhetorical question so that I could answer it for those who were thinking it..

Sorry if I offended

Oh...not offended at all....

 

[Hotwire]

See...this is exactly what I am talking about regarding misinformation.

What you said is ONLY true if you are buying from a private individual, not a gun dealer. And that is exactly the way it is in Georgia anyways. I can sell a gun to anyone legally as long as they show me a valid Ga driver's license. In fact, I have sold and purchased a few guns this way personally.

Just FYI, Ive been to about 5 gun shows this year and all combined, I think there was 1 private individual selling his own firearms (which does not require a background check, only that the person proves he is a Georgia resident) versus HUNDREDS of dealers that DO require the background check.

This is exactly the kind of stuff that has been frustrating me in this thread. I have complained about this several times now. Please guys, please, ask questions, do research or something before posting an blatantly incorrect statement that is misleading.

I did.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States#section_1

 

[Hotwire]

See...this is exactly what I am talking about regarding misinformation.

What you said is ONLY true if you are buying from a private individual, not a gun dealer. And that is exactly the way it is in Georgia anyways. I can sell a gun to anyone legally as long as they show me a valid Ga driver's license. In fact, I have sold and purchased a few guns this way personally.

Just FYI, Ive been to about 5 gun shows this year and all combined, I think there was 1 private individual selling his own firearms (which does not require a background check, only that the person proves he is a Georgia resident) versus HUNDREDS of dealers that DO require the background check.

This is exactly the kind of stuff that has been frustrating me in this thread. I have complained about this several times now. Please guys, please, ask questions, do research or something before posting an blatantly incorrect statement that is misleading.

Also, that's still a loophole that should be closed.

 

[mrvlknight21]

I did.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States#section_1

Edit: I see you corrected it, thank you.

 

[superpower]

I think a better example would be in my case....

I am Pro-Choice....and immediately when people see that they think...Pro-Abortion....when in fact, if it were "my" decision....I would not have an abortion, I simply do not think that my choice has to be everyone's choice. Also, I am against late term abortions...but, again, as soon as I say I am Pro-Choice.....I immediately get put into the category of Pro-Abortion.

Personally I believe it is because these notions ie, gun control, pro choice, taxes etc.. are blanket notions that every individual has their own interpretation, to a certain extent, of.

I think its more of a communication flaw than anything else.

I've noticed that while engaging in political conversations I must always do my best to spell out exactly where I'm coming from. If I do that then I find about 90-95% agreement from whomever I am speaking with. Yet the moment a blanket statement is made disagreement follows almost instantly.

It's really about expressing thoughts without using "their" words. "Their" blanket terms are meant to divide and conquer.

 

[Hotwire]

And your blanket statement was INCORRECT.

Fixed it.

Now, is this a loophole that should be left open? I don't think so.

 

[Cobblepot]

As for owning guns think of it this way. I'm going to assume that the majority of people on here collect comic books. After all, we are on a comic book message board. So why do we collect comics? Because, we enjoy it. It makes us happy to read the latest issue of whatever we enjoy. The same goes for gun collectors. The man I work with who has AR's going back to Vietnam with two of those being full auto is a collector. He is preserving history and he is a Vietnam vet. They are all original parts from that time period.
I have gun collector friends who don't see the point of owning full auto guns. Their point is that it's a waste of ammo and extremely expensive. I see that point. My feeling is if someone has the means and goes about it the legal way, then why not.
I've never fired a full auto. I hope to someday, but I will never own one. I can't see paying $13,000 for a gun.

You can collect guns in Holland aswell, no problem but the weapon needs to be disabled and not be able to fire.

Anyway here's an old article (2010) I thinks these stats are shocking:

With the arrival of summer in the urban areas of Chicago comes more violence. Over this past weekend, eight people were killed and fifty-two others were shot due to gun violence.

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/6129086-chicago-is-now-the-murder-capital-of-the-world

More people are getting killed in Chicago every week than in Baghdad right now.

 

[mrvlknight21]

Fixed it.

Now, is this a loophole that should be left open? I don't think so.

I saw that and fixed mine as well. Thank you.

Well, to me this is not a "gun show loophole."
As I stated, in Georgia, selling guns this way is perfectly legal (just need to show proof that the buyer is a GA resident).
I have sold and purchased several guns this way personally (not at gun shows).
There is a LARGE market for used guns here in Georgia (and other states, as I am told). You can use many websites to advertise the private sale of your personally owned firearm. I am a member of several of them. So, while I agree that there should be some regulations....this is MUCH MUCH larger than gun show sales.

 

[mrvlknight21]

You can collect guns in Holland aswell, no problem but the weapon needs to be disabled and not be able to fire.

Anyway here's an old article (2010) I thinks these stats are shocking:

With the arrival of summer in the urban areas of Chicago comes more violence. Over this past weekend, eight people were killed and fifty-two others were shot due to gun violence.

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/6129086-chicago-is-now-the-murder-capital-of-the-world

More people are getting killed in Chicago every week than in Baghdad right now.

And Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in America. It is my understanding that during this time, there was a huge gang war going on that was responsible for a lot of this violence.

See the last line in this article
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/21/chicago-violence-at-least_n_619259.html
Chicago Police Superintendent Jody Weis on Sunday acknowledged a high number shootings over the weekend and said gangs were involved in more than half of the incidents.

I highly doubt that these were legal gun owners.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Fixed it.

Now, is this a loophole that should be left open? I don't think so.

How? How do you control the manner in which an individual sells something that belongs to them? A gun isn't a car. Forgetting the object for a moment, that level of control, of interference of someone's personal time and property by the government is NOT good. I know your intentions behind this statement are good, but the logistics of how the government could even possibly do this without infringing on the rights and privacy of citizens would be insane.

 

[Hotwire]

How? How do you control the manner in which an individual sells something that belongs to them? A gun isn't a car. Forgetting the object for a moment, that level of control, of interference of someone's personal time and property by the government is NOT good. I know your intentions behind this statement are good, but the logistics of how the government could even possibly do this without infringing on the rights and privacy of citizens would be insane.

Either private sellers and their buyers file paperwork with the proper authorities or, all firearms sales must go through a dealer of some sort.

As it stands, a convicted felon can easily buy a perfectly legal gun.

 

[superpower]

I saw that and fixed mine as well. Thank you.

Well, to me this is not a "gun show loophole."
As I stated, in Georgia, selling guns this way is perfectly legal (just need to show proof that the buyer is a GA resident).
I have sold and purchased several guns this way personally (not at gun shows).
There is a LARGE market for used guns here in Georgia (and other states, as I am told). You can use many websites to advertise the private sale of your personally owned firearm. I am a member of several of them. So, while I agree that there should be some regulations....this is MUCH MUCH larger than gun show sales.

Does a private owner have to notify anyone of the sale?

 

[superpower]

How? How do you control the manner in which an individual sells something that belongs to them? A gun isn't a car. Forgetting the object for a moment, that level of control, of interference of someone's personal time and property by the government is NOT good. I know your intentions behind this statement are good, but the logistics of how the government could even possibly do this without infringing on the rights and privacy of citizens would be insane.

A simple easy to use form from the post office would work fine. No?

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

There's some really disturbing garbage on facebook. I guess the silver lining is that people will reveal themselves as morons.

Unfortunately, this is the ugly side of having and preserving free speech.

As much as it sickens me and disgusts me, this is the kind of speech that we have to allow even though we don't like it. I do applaud Facebook's stand of "there's nothing we can do unless we find evidence of a credible threat"

I comfort myself by thinking that most of these 800 people are largely just internet trolls who have a very bad sense of humor.

Unfortunately, our idea of fun and preserving history wasn't designed to kill people. Hence why no one is calling for comic book reform.

But people do. People blame comic books, video games, TV, movies, and music all the time for violence. When that happens, the fans of said media (rightfully) get up in arms protesting against it with the claims that their media didn't cause the person to go crazy and kill people.

Same can be said about guns. It wasn't the gun that caused a person to go crazy and shoot up a movie theater. It was his sick and demented mind.

The gun gave him a means to do it, yes, just as comic books and movies may have been an inspiration in his sick mind to go and do it.

Guns share just as much non-blame in this incident as Batman comics and Chris Nolan movies.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

I think the point he was going for was the fact that the gun was designed to kill people. Whereas comic books were designed for escapist fantasy. More that a gun can be used to kill a person, a 22 page comic can't.

 

[terry78]

I think the point he was going for was the fact that the gun was designed to kill people. Whereas comic books were designed for escapist fantasy. More that a gun can be used to kill a person, a 22 page comic can't.

It can if you're MacGyver.

 

[superpower]

Twas an unworthy post. Oops

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Right. We fans shouldn't lose Batman to this bastard.

Nobody is losing Batman to anything or anyone. But it is a fact that this film is going to carry the stigma of a shooting that happened at a premiere for it.

It is not "unfair". It is a movie.

What is "unfair" is that 12 people are dead, and dozens more injured, because of a sick and twisted individual.

Personally, the last thing I am concerned about is the stigma attached to a movie because of it.

When Batman movies and comics start becoming banned and censored, then I will care.

But this incident being called "The Dark Knight Massacre", or "The Batman Massacre" is an accurate description of what it was, and whatever stigma this movie carries with it because of it is not "unfair".

I think we as fanboys are focusing on the wrong issues, when we are concerned about this being called the "Dark Knight Massacre", or the media comparing him to The Joker.

Is it stupid that the media is trying to connect this to the material more than it really is connected? Yes. It's nothing more than trying to gain ratings by creating a story where there isn't one, when you're trying to compare this guy to The Joker. But I think there's an aspect of "priorities in the wrong place" when fanboys are getting upset about how fictional characters are being treated in light of all of it.

I think the point he was going for was the fact that the gun was designed to kill people. Whereas comic books were designed for escapist fantasy. More that a gun can be used to kill a person, a 22 page comic can't.

The argument (not one that I agree with) is that violence in comic books (and movies, and video games, and music) do make people become violent, and commit crimes, because they are influenced by what they see.

The same way the argument (again, not one that I agree with) is that easier access to a gun leads to a higher likelihood of committing a violent crime.

My argument is that the crime would have been committed regardless of influence of comic books or access to guns. If he was going to do this, he was going to do it regardless. It wouldn't matter if he had read Batman comics or not, and it wouldn't matter if the guns he had were legal or not. He would have committed the crime anyways. And if not this crime, then another.

 

[Anita18]

Nobody is losing Batman to anything or anyone. But it is a fact that this film is going to carry the stigma of a shooting that happened at a premiere for it.

It is not "unfair". It is a movie.

What is "unfair" is that 12 people are dead, and dozens more injured, because of a sick and twisted individual.

Personally, the last thing I am concerned about is the stigma attached to a movie because of it.

When Batman movies and comics start becoming banned and censored, then I will care.

But this incident being called "The Dark Knight Massacre", or "The Batman Massacre" is an accurate description of what it was, and whatever stigma this movie carries with it because of it is not "unfair".

I think we as fanboys are focusing on the wrong issues, when we are concerned about this being called the "Dark Knight Massacre", or the media comparing him to The Joker.

Is it stupid that the media is trying to connect this to the material more than it really is connected? Yes. It's nothing more than trying to gain ratings by creating a story where there isn't one, when you're trying to compare this guy to The Joker. But I think there's an aspect of "priorities in the wrong place" when fanboys are getting upset about how fictional characters are being treated in light of all of it.

You also seem to forget that the shooting victims are fans too. Midnight screening, they were probably in the same jubilant environment I was in - costumes, pictures, geek love everywhere. My first thought when I read about the shooting coming back from my midnight screening: "They were one of us. That could have been us if there was a psycho with a gun in the theater."

Would you be okay with them having a negative reaction every time they see "Batman," even though they were big enough fans to attend the midnight showing? Cause that's pretty tragic in itself too. And that's what the media is doing whenever they use that term - they're reminding the victims what they used to love is now something to hate.