If given the descison, what would you do with the colorado shooter (punishment wise)?

[EmperorAugustus]

personally this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGYI1UHK5jM

[DuskTrooper]

And how exactly is this a debate?

[Rawra]

It seems certain people have too much time on their hands.

[Rawra]

Yes, it was to the OP, obviously.

[BlakeS5678]

Death penalty. Obviously. The only debate here is whether he should be executed in one hour or two. There's absolutely no doubt that it wasn't him, and if the bombs rigged in his apartment didn't make you think it was premeditated, I don't know what will.

And how exactly is this a debate?

For the love of freaking god, why do we have to question if it's a debate EVERY time a new person starts a thread in the debate room. Only noobs flame noobs.

[Mistermook]

For the love of freaking god, why do we have to question if it's a debate EVERY time a new person starts a thread in the debate room. Only noobs flame noobs.
I don't know why. Personally I think it's because kids these days aren't really taught the difference between a debate and a discussion. Or maybe people simply aren't reading the rules these days?

[DuskTrooper]

EVERY time
Is there really a need to exaggerate such a simple question? :rolleyes:

[iCad]

I don't know why. Personally I think it's because kids these days aren't really taught the difference between a debate and a discussion. Or maybe people simply aren't reading the rules these days?

Apparently, folks think that any discussion about a potentially controversial subject is a debate. Actually, I'd brand most things that go in The Debate Room as discussions.

As to the question: It's not place to decide. I'm not a judge. Sure, it's easy to say "String him up!" But I'm not into vigilante "justice," for all that I do support the death penalty under certain circumstances. I don't have nearly enough info to decide what a fair/appropriate punishment would be in this case.

[VerDeTerre]

I would enact a gun control law in his name. When are we going to say, "enough of this!"?

[BlakeS5678]

I would enact a gun control law in his name. When are we going to say, "enough of this!"?

I agree. If it were up to me the only people, allowed to carry guns is the military. They would otherwise be obsolete. Criminals could rarely get their hands on them, because how often do you hear of an individual stealing from the military, for only a gun?

Is there really a need to exaggerate such a simple question? :rolleyes:

I'm not going to give you the satisfaction you want by answering that.

[coltraz]

But you're more likely to see a "gun control law" enacted in which you must show ID, take off your shoes, and pass through metal detectors before you can see a movie.

[piggypeach]

I don't think it's just that simple to make a gun control law. It's the second amendment. Can you imagine the millions of people that would protest? I agree that it should be more strict, but it would require corrupting the Bill of Rights.

My advice is to move to England. To be honest, that's what I'm planning on doing. Not because of the guns or anything, just because I was born there and stuff. I dunno.

[missy harries]

My advice is to move to England. To be honest, that's what I'm planning on doing. Not because of the guns or anything, just because I was born there and stuff. I dunno.

Yeah and instead of people getting killed by guns have people getting beaten to death and knifed instead. There was also a shop a while back that got held up with a cross bow..... Some murders are seriously brutal in Britan people are creative when they don't have an easy weapon on hand, but at least there's no real mass shootings or anything.

I'm all for punishment to fit the crime.
But then again nothing is ever black and white, some behaviour like this is caused by a defect in the brain even a brain tumour can cause a normal happy person 'to loose it' and go postal while others are just so mentaly scarred that they may not see they're behaviour as wrong or they just don't feel anything, sometimes with enough therapy/healing they can change for the better. But then you do have those who are just horribly vindictive and it's hard to know the appropriate action when we really don't know the full story.

I don't know if no guns is the answer. Yes guns do give people the access for this kind of shooting but at the same time I might feel a lot safer if I had a gun, it's hard to say.

[iCad]

Yeah and instead of people getting killed by guns have people getting beaten to death and knifed instead. There was also a shop a while back that got held up with a cross bow..... Some murders are seriously brutal in Britan people are creative when they don't have an easy weapon on hand, but at least there's no real mass shootings or anything.

This is exactly true. Sure, we can take away guns, but even if it were possible to make it so that no one could possibly have access to them, a person wanting to do harm will find a way to do it, even on a large scale. Bombs can be made from fertilizer. Lethal gases can be made from common household chemicals. People feeling suicidal can ram a plane or a car into a building. Etc. etc. etc.

Of course, the argument goes that it's better to take away one avenue to killing than to do nothing. And that's true. But I guess I just don't like the precedent that sets. Taking things away doesn't solve things; it only makes people more creative. I equate it to leaving food in easy reach of a bear as opposed to locking it up in a shed or something. If it's down on the ground, in the open, you'll lose your food store to a hungry bear, sure, but at least the bear will generally just take it and go, with minimal collateral damage. Whereas if you make it more difficult to get at the food, that won't necessarily deter the bear from getting the food. You'll only make it so that she has to be more creative in getting at it, often causing a lot more damage in the process.

So really, I don't know the answer. We're a violent species, unfortunately, and some people can't control their impulses well.

I don't know if no guns is the answer. Yes guns do give people the access for this kind of shooting but at the same time I might feel a lot safer if I had a gun, it's hard to say.

You'd only be safer if you knew how to use it well, and a lot of people who buy a gun for "self-defense" never learn how to use and maintain it properly, thus making it more likely that you (or someone else in your household) will be injured by a gun purchased for self-defense.

Me, I have guns because I enjoy target shooting. It's a great stress-reliever, I think it helps to keep my eyesight sharp, and I like entering competitions. I don't think I could ever shoot a human being. I mean, technically I could and I could do it very well and lethally, but I don't know that I could bring myself to do so. We'll see, if I'm ever put in a situation where I'm mortally threatened and I have a gun conveniently at hand. (Which isn't usually the case; our household guns are kept in a gun safe that isn't particularly easy to get to in the house.) Other than that, I have no vested interest in keeping guns legal here in the US. I'm not a hunter, and I don't keep guns for self-defense, really...although as a small rancher, I do carry a shotgun when there's a disturbance on our property that might be caused by a bear or a mountain lion and I go out to investigate it and possibly to defend our livestock. A good shotgun is about the only thing I'll feel safe enough behind in that sort of situation. So, if you count that as self-defense, there you go.

Really, I'm leery of extreme-measure gun control mostly because I don't think it will solve the overall problem. I don't know what WILL solve the overall problem, but I'm pretty sure that taking guns away from average, sane gun owners isn't really going to do much.

[NaeShelle]

But I'm not into vigilante "justice," for all that I do support the death penalty under certain circumstances. I don't have nearly enough info to decide what a fair/appropriate punishment would be in this case.

I'd hardly call it "vigilante". Justice, yes. But it would be done by civil, hopefully impartial law makers. (Though, I don't know how anyone can main impartiality - it's times like this I do wonder if Murder Suspects ever get fair, unbiased trials. For all the judge knows, they did/didn't murder anyone. Hard to stay impartial with preconceived notions.)

I'd like to agree with iCad and say "I can't say because I'm not a judge", but... Dealth Penalty.

I probably should give a different, "more humane" answer, but, he killed... 12 people? Wounded some 50+ others? What other option is there?

Letting him sit, to rot, to "regret his decisions"... What is that going to do? People are always allowed to get off easy with that - If he took all of that time and planning (He booby-trapped his apartment!), what makes you think he had anything to regret? He knew what he was doing; for Heaven's sake, the man willingly gave himself over to the police after he decided he was done with target practice. They say he had enough tactical gear on to shoot it out and have a chance of surviving - He knew good and well what he was doing and making him think about it even more isn't punishment. It's like sitting your child in time out, handing them candy the entire time.

I think the real question is... Will they let him push forward with the "Insanity Plea"? Unless I'm late and they've already done that (then just ignore me). I can't see how they would, though, I know several people were saying it was a possibility... Not sure how insanity factors into when you've done that much planning, but, I know in he had, say, a tumor, or psychotic disorder/break (be it "genetic", caused by said tumor, etc.), it'd be really easy for him to fail in differentiating what is and isn't happening, meaning he wasn't in his right mind when he did it. Then, maybe, just maybe, the DP wouldn't be a viable option.

(On a side note: Take away guns, 90% of the south has just become a band of renegade criminals. We're not letting go that easily. And, only because iCad was right: Why take away our guns, when we know how to use them and aren't likely to, any time soon, go shooting up a bunch of people? Excuse my crude manner of stating that, but, I've never understood the whole "Take 'em away!" or "Regulate them!" position - why do that to people who aren't doing anything wrong with them?

Not to mention, if I really want a gun, regardless of what the government THINKS they're going to do to stop me, I'm going to get one. Same with illegal substances - assuming, y'know, at the point I'm speaking of, they're both illegal. There are always methods of getting one, and, so, it makes the people that would do this more lethal. Well, if not "lethal" than "scary" is the correct word. Especially when you think of how much they could be willing to do to get to a gun.)

[paksetti]

Hey, Dusktrooper, did you know your avatar is covered in spinning pot leaves?

Did you know that?

[GnatGoSplat]

Yeah and instead of people getting killed by guns have people getting beaten to death and knifed instead. There was also a shop a while back that got held up with a cross bow..... Some murders are seriously brutal in Britan people are creative when they don't have an easy weapon on hand, but at least there's no real mass shootings or anything.

That's actually a better argument for gun control, as you mentioned, a gun is an "easy weapon". It's so easy, even a small child could successfully take a life with it. When it comes to killing, there is no easier, more convenient tool for the job. A gun lets you kill across great distance, and with amazing speed. In just minutes, this shooter was able to shoot 71 or so people, killing 12. In the same amount of time, how many lives could he have taken with a knife, or a bat? Far, far less, that's for sure!
I'm not saying gun control is the answer, but I can certainly see where people are coming from when they suggest it.

I'm all for punishment to fit the crime.
But then again nothing is ever black and white, some behaviour like this is caused by a defect in the brain even a brain tumour can cause a normal happy person 'to loose it' and go postal while others are just so mentaly scarred that they may not see they're behaviour as wrong or they just don't feel anything, sometimes with enough therapy/healing they can change for the better. But then you do have those who are just horribly vindictive and it's hard to know the appropriate action when we really don't know the full story.

I see this as a black and white case. I don't care about his mental state, his level of sanity, or whether there is some physical defect in his brain. There is no doubt he is the perpetrator and there is no place on this planet for him. Death penalty is the only punishment fitting of this crime. When someone purposefully chooses to take the life of an innocent person, the only time I think that doesn't warrant the death penalty is if evidence is circumstantial or if there is even any slight possibility the person didn't actually commit the crime.

I don't know if no guns is the answer. Yes guns do give people the access for this kind of shooting but at the same time I might feel a lot safer if I had a gun, it's hard to say.

Banning guns could never work in the US, and it will NEVER be an option. A gun ban could only work in a country where there wasn't already a huge proliferation of guns in the country. A HUGE obstacle is the hundreds of millions of people who think the Second Amendment is the best one in the entire Constitution. For some reason, there are many people in this country whose love of guns is second only to their love of god. They would protect their right to bear arms as passionately as they would protect their religion or family. I don't understand that mentality at all, because I don't own a gun, never wanted one, and can't see ever wanting one. However, people somehow get to where they love them, and there are enough gun loving people around with a loud enough voice that they'll always have a firm influence in our government.

Would a gun ban greatly reduce mass shootings? I think so, as in every mass shooting that I recall, the guns used were obtained legally. People might argue they'd just get their guns illegally, but I'm not so sure. Many mass shooters have been characterized as seemingly ordinary, yet introverted people from white collar backgrounds. I'm never surprised when I hear they buy some of their gun stuff online, because that's the easiest way to do it with the least interpersonal communication. People like this don't typically have the underworld connections to get illegal weapons. On the other hand, I don't think gang violence, guns being used for robberies, or shootings in blighted areas would decrease at all from a gun ban.

I also don't think a complete ban like the UK would be very practical in the US. Some people do legitimately need guns for protection. We have a lot of rural wooded areas with bears, wolves, etc. Sometimes decent people also end up having to live in bad high-crime neighborhoods where all their creepy neighbors are armed.

[Petchy]

Me? I'd lock him up, do psychology tests, not let him leave, find out what happened. By studying this case in INTIMATE detail we can learn how to prevent these types of shootings from happening down the line; no more blood needs to be spilt when it could help stop deaths in the future.

Yeah, I'm against the death penalty, so shoot me.

[kiwi_tea]

Gun control is *not* the same thing as "banning" guns.

[maxon]

Hey, Dusktrooper, did you know your avatar is covered in spinning pot leaves?

Did you know that?
Ima mesmerized by it.

[kiwi_tea]

Actually, I think it's important to remember another of the many reasons why the death penalty is a damned stupid response to disasters like this:

President Barack Obama touched down in the Denver, Colorado area Sunday afternoon to meet with the families of the victims of the Aurora movie theatre massacre. Afterwards he made a brief public appearance, in which he declared:
“Although the perpetrator of this evil act has received a lot of attention over the past couple of days, that attention will fade away. In the end, after he has felt the full force of our justice system, what will be remembered are the good people who were impacted by this tragedy.”

This statement is both thoughtless and cynical. As a matter of fact, very little is known about James Holmes, the alleged gunman responsible for the killing of 12 people and the wounding of scores more. It is fortunate that this individual did not take his own life at the conclusion of his homicidal rampage. The fact that Holmes is still alive at least provides the possibility that the deeper psychological causes of this and other episodes of mass killing will be found.

Hopefully, doctors will make a serious effort to discover the neurological and psychological processes that led a young man to commit such a heinous crime. As this is the third major incident of mass killing to take place during his presidency, one would imagine that Obama would also recognize the importance of such an investigation. But this president, it seems, can think only of revenge. He believes that the troubling issues raised by this latest tragedy will be settled when Holmes is subjected to “the full force of our justice system.”
(source (http://wsws.org/articles/2012/jul2012/pers-j23.shtml))

I agree. It is fortunate we have him here to learn about him. Just blithely killing him out of bloodlust and we don't even have that.

[Petchy]

...we have him here to learn about him. Just blithely killing him out of bloodlust and we don't even have that.

Definitely. Sometimes it's as important to treat the infection from inside-out as it is to mindlessly wash the wound clean. I don't think killing for killing is a beneficial and/or rational way to live your life - not everyone is mentally ill, of course, and we may not be able to learn much from their cases, but I truly (really I just don't) think that humans should have the right to give death for death because we're all flawed. Heck, how many times have we gotten soap in our eyes in the shower as a race?

[iCad]

Gun control is *not* the same thing as "banning" guns.

In many people's minds, they are one and the same.

My own idea of "gun control" is kind of the same as "motor vehicle control," in the sense that we make people who drive motor vehicles get a license of various kinds in order to do so. We make them demonstrate that they know how to drive a car safely and in accordance with the law before they're allowed to do so. (Legally, at least; lots of people drive without a license, too, and unless they get into an accident or get pulled over by the police for something, they generally don't get caught.) Some states also require cars to be inspected yearly to make sure that, for instance, the brakes are working. All of this is done mostly for public safety.

Yet, in the US we hand out guns -- which are much more complicated than, say, a knife -- without making sure that people know how to use them. Granted, cars kill more people than guns do and, granted, putting in some kind of more rigorous licensing procedure might be a bureaucratic nightmare. But I think it would cut down on the amount of accidental gun deaths/injuries, perhaps. Of course, it likely won't do much for gun crime, since criminals will do what they will do regardless of laws that are passed. It might do something for mass shootings, though. If people can't just walk into a sporting goods store and immediately walk out with a gun, unless they already have a license, that might deter some of them. Maybe. I don't really know. But hey, it's something. I also tend to think that a database that will send up a flag if someone suddenly buys a bunch of guns in a short period of time might be a good idea because that's really not normal gun-owner behavior. That's more like the behavior of someone planning to do something potentially nasty.

But banning altogether? Don't think that'll work very well in the US. Even if it ever happened, I'd personally hang onto my shotgun tooth and nail, even if it makes me a criminal. It's not because I'm a gun-happy yahoo, mind you, but because if I'm out and about and I encounter a bear or a mountain lion or even an overly-aggressive bull elk or even "just" a big nutty whitetail buck who's mad with the rut, I'm not going to be able to deter it with anything else. And yes, I have encountered all of those face-to-face multiple times, either out on trails or because they're threatening my livestock, which are a good chunk of our livelihood. And yes, I have fired at them, albeit warning shots, not shooting to kill. However, if that didn't send 'em on their way, I'd be more than happy to put a bullet or two through their brain, too. As someone else said, some of us live very rurally, in parts of the world where nasty predators are still quite abundant and where some large and none-too-friendly herbivores with skewering horns and trampling hooves live, as well.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

It's the second amendment.

an amendment which was formed back in the day when guns mattered if you had to fight off a cruel and unruly government.
nowadays, guns are useless in this sense. the government has biological and nuclear weaponry. muskets wont save anyone from that.

respecting the ideas that this country was founded on is a good thing to do, but when the rules are so thoroughly outdated, why continue living by them?

keep in mind, the shooter bought all of his guns legally. LEGALLY.
it doesnt matter if someone knows how to use a gun. in fact, im willing to bet that if the shooter in this scenario HADNT known how to use a gun, fewer lives wouldve been lost. if he had been forced to use a knife, because he couldnt get his hands on a gun, fewer lives wouldve been lost. i would rather we NOT school future methodical killers in ways they can kill more and waste less, thank you very much. a simple outlawing of the guns that are not necessary for hunting game would suffice--why the HELL did this guy have an assault rifle?! WHY is that available to the ordinary citizen...?? what threat is so great that we need to be able to pump several bullets out per second to be saved from it...? this is america, for f'cks sake, not uganda! our biggest fears are whether its going to rain today or "what if starbucks ran out of my mocha again?".

knowing the human mind is not as simple as "making a serious effort". anyone who would think to imply that, obviously has not thought about the complexity of the human mind past that sentiment.

EDIT: also, there is only so much you can do to study a human mind. dont forget, "inhumane" testing that has yielded so much new information in the past on animals, are not allowed to be performed on living humans. simply pushing for the research to yield results more/faster, without changing or allowing for new techniques to be applied, isnt enough to make it happen. and this is, of course, not even considering how much money it takes to make new discoveries....money that nobody wants to fork over.

[crocobaura]

I agree. It is fortunate we have him here to learn about him. Just blithely killing him out of bloodlust and we don't even have that.

Makes you wonder how a neuroscience student was so knowledgeable about guns and booby traps, and planned this in such detail, yet he was such a poor marksman.

[VerDeTerre]

--why the HELL did this guy have an assault rifle?! WHY is that available to the ordinary citizen...?? what threat is so great that we need to be able to pump several bullets out per second to be saved from it...? I couldn't agree more, it's overkill. The NRA is instrumental in making sure that every nut who wants to do harm has the protected right to do so.

[GnatGoSplat]

I agree. It is fortunate we have him here to learn about him. Just blithely killing him out of bloodlust and we don't even have that.

Average time spent on death row is about 14yrs or so. Plenty of time to study him even if he's sentenced to death.

[iCad]

A few random comments:

Average time spent on death row is about 14yrs or so. Plenty of time to study him even if he's sentenced to death.

True. It's not like they're taken out back and shot at the conclusion of the trial. And, not to be to macabre, but sometimes a lot can be learned from post-mortem exams, as well...

...why the HELL did this guy have an assault rifle?!

I don't own one, myself, but...Well, I do have to say I would have liked to have had one when I was face-to-face with a big ol' bear. Granted, most people who buy them don't use them for that sort of thing, but yeah, I wouldn't have minded... Not that this guy was liable to encounter bears up in Denver, mind you.

I think the real question is... Will they let him push forward with the "Insanity Plea"?

Most defendents in this sort of case do go with that plea, if they wish to attempt to avoid the death penalty because pretty much it's the only plea that WILL avoid that sentence in a case like this. (Unless, like Dahmer, they're tried in a state where there is no death penalty. Colorado is not one of those states, however.) Most people who actually make it to a trial for this sort of thing seem to want to avoid the death penalty. Those who might've pleaded guilty are probably those who kill themselves at the end of their killing spree.

But it's not a question of "letting him." All defendants have the right to plead whatever the hell they want to plead. There is no "letting." Whether or not he will choose to plead not guilty by reason of insanity is entirely up to him. He might or might not listen to advice from lawyers. It's up to him.

I probably should give a different, "more humane" answer, but, he killed... 12 people? Wounded some 50+ others? What other option is there?

Twelve consecutive life sentences, for one, probably without the possibility of parole. Plus possibly additional sentences for assault with a deadly weapon and what-not for those whom he injured. That would pretty much guarantee that he won't see the light of day again.

The reason why I said I don't like "vigilante" justice is that I don't think anyone who's emotionally riled up about the case should be passing judgment. Judges don't necessarily have to be personally impartial, but they DO have to make their decisions based on the law, without letting their emotions or any feelings of either anger or sympathy cloud their thinking. They do have SOME latitude -- For instance, to take into account whether the offense is a defendant's first offense and then give them a lighter sentence accordingly -- but they do have to sentence according to the laws on the books, not "ramp up" a sentence because he/she feels a lot of anger about the offense in question. It's not easy to do. I could do it, I think, because I can compartmentalize very well...but it isn't a job I'd want.

[kennyinbmore]

I would enact a gun control law in his name. When are we going to say, "enough of this!"?

Gun laws don't stop crazy people who seem normal from getting guns. Dude bought his guns legally

[DuskTrooper]

Hey, Dusktrooper, did you know your avatar is covered in spinning pot leaves?

Did you know that?

Yes I knew that. I chose this avatar because I like the novelty of it.

Gun laws don't stop people from getting guns.

This is a good point. I doesn't matter whether guns are legal or not. If someone is determined enough to obtain them, then they'll find some way to get their hands on them.

[missy harries]

Makes you wonder how a neuroscience student was so knowledgeable about guns and booby traps, and planned this in such detail, yet he was such a poor marksman.

Its called google......

[VerDeTerre]

Gun laws don't stop crazy people who seem normal from getting guns. Dude bought his guns legally That's my point - he bought it legally because we don't have gun control. At the very least, he should have been restricted to a simple hand gun and he would have done less damage.

I disagree - maybe you can't stop all crazy people, but if you make it harder you are going to stop many. If we had gun control laws, where would this nut have gotten his guns? It would be significantly more difficult and then the authorities would have been aware of him.

Leave a car unlocked with the keys in and it's chances of getting stolen are significantly higher than if you take the keys out and lock it.

[iCad]

That's my point - he bought it legally because we don't have gun control. At the very least, he should have been restricted to a simple hand gun and he would have done less damage.

Actually we DO have gun control. For instance, for certain kinds of guns, when purchased legally, there's a waiting period. During that waiting period, a background check is performed. If the person has, for instance, felony convictions for a violent crime on their record, they will be denied. Generally, this is done for easily-concealed hand weapons, not for hunting rifles that are hard to conceal. There are also controls on assault rifles.

The problem is that the controls are reactive rather than proactive. If someone has no record, then they will not be denied a purchase because nothing will "flag" during the various checks that are, indeed, performed. And most people who do this sort of mass shooting do not have a prior record. This is one of the reasons why I think a flag should be raised in the databases if someone buys a cluster of guns in a short period of time. I don't know the length of time over which this guy bought his guns, but if they were in a cluster over a short period of time, then if something like the above were in place, that might have been a red flag. And it wouldn't have broken/infringed upon any kind of privacy laws as, say, a flag in the database for treatment of mental illness would.

If we had gun control laws, where would this nut have gotten his guns? It would be significantly more difficult and then the authorities would have been aware of him.

Not necessarily. He could, for instance, borrow them from someone. Purchase them at a trade show where rules are relaxed. Etc. It's easier than you might think, and we DO have gun control laws, as I said. But they're hampered in part by the fact that there are also laws that protect both privacy and a person's right to buy and own a weapon. Which isn't to say that the laws can't be changed and improved, of course. But there ARE gun control laws in place. That we don't have more of them...Well, there are numerous reasons for that, not the least of which is the Bill of Rights. Which, again, is not sacrosanct, but it's also not an easy thing to change, for various reasons.

[NaeShelle]

Me? I'd lock him up, do psychology tests, not let him leave, find out what happened. By studying this case in INTIMATE detail we can learn how to prevent these types of shootings from happening down the line; no more blood needs to be spilt when it could help stop deaths in the future.

Yeah, I'm against the death penalty, so shoot me.

You're never going to stop mass shootings.

Just like you're never going to be able to stop plagues.
Or drug/gun battles.
Or aggravated murders.
Or anything else involving humans and death (intentional or not).

And, typically, in these situations, I've been accused of being the romanticist. I like to put more faith in the human heart than that, but, what is there left to put faith it? (Excuse the melodramatic feel to that statement)

I've pretty much come to accept that bad things are going to happen. It's in the human heart - Not everyone is going to happy. Not everyone is going to be sane. And one of those two people is going to reach a point to where everything they knew was right (like, say, not going into theaters to take target practice), suddenly doesn't become a viable option any longer.

It would be nice to contain and study him, but, with the right intentions. (And, again, with impartiality and time - which is hard to believe will be accomplished when I hear seasoned professionals on the television making statements like "a silent, but deadly, individual who finally met a breaking point, and, seemingly, suffered a psychotic break. How does anyone get to that in such a short amount of time!? And, comparing him to the "Columbine" shooters? They're three different people - study them as such. And, I know, I know, those professionals probably won't be profiling him for any official report in the judicial system, but, it doesn't at all increase my hopeful outlook.)

I don't think we should look at it from the whole "How can we stop it from happening" angle, at least, not right away - If we do, we'll be focused more on the preventive steps and, meanwhile, you've got someone else with a gun open on the public, just going at it.

Prevention helps when you have your idea of the odds of it happening again, when you can point at one person and say "They'll do it" and they do it. It's a nice idea, but, certainly not the most practical, when you've got 300+ million people in one place.

[SeeMyu]

And how exactly is this a debate?

It's a debate because most people will have different opinions what they want to happen to the shooter, which can lead into people disagreeing with each other. It's a good debate, if you ask me.
---

Anywho, I believe a life sentence would serve more purpose than a death penalty. Shooting 58 (i believe) people and leaving 12 dead.. I think he should dwell on that for the rest of his life.. confined in a little space. That's worse, in my opinion, than a quick death.

[Tempscire]

He's worth some study, I suppose, but the rest-of-his-lifetime of it? It's not like he'd ever see the outside of a jail cell, I imagine-- though that'd be an interesting topic; in a hypothetical world in which a sociopath or whatever could empirically be 'redeemed,' ought they continue their sentences?--and even in the case of determining (an) underlying cause(s), I sincerely doubt it will be anything that could be effectively applied as a preventative. (Brain shape screenings? Mandated emotional analysis? Hormonal and genetic counseling at birth and throughout life?) Rabid dogs (and humans who have demonstrated a total disregard for peacefully coexisting in society to a terrible degree) ought to be put down to trouble no one any further.

The NRA is instrumental in making sure that every nut who wants to do harm has the protected right to do so.
The NRA does not work to ensure "nuts" have a "protected right" to "do harm." The NRA is instrumental in ensuring that citizens have access to guns as permitted by the Second Amendment. Some of those people turn out to be nuts who abuse the right, at which point the law comes down on said nuts like a ton of bricks. The NRA has supported some questionable gun-access legislation, but they have not, to my knowledge, made an effort to defend gun-wielding cold-blooded murderers as a-okay and beyond reproach or punishment.

"Gun owner" is not, in fact, synonymous with "harm-causing nutter."

[Mistermook]

The NRA has supported some questionable gun-access legislation, but they have not, to my knowledge, made an effort to defend gun-wielding cold-blooded murderers as a-okay and beyond reproach or punishment.
If they were a platform for "owners of nerve gas" and once a year some person that owned nerve gas lost it and killed the approximately 15,000 people a year that die from gun violence in a single "let's kill an entire small town" outburst, would it still seem okay?

The problem isn't that they're not supporting the people who kill other people with guns, it's that they're actively preventing people who would attempt to make gun ownership safer from accomplishing that mission because too often they've got this implied notion that "if we give an inch, they'll take away all firearms forever." It's a position with no nuance. It's not clever. It's obstructionist, not productive. No one disagrees with the existence of the Second Amendment, but there is plenty of room within that legislation to have a conversation that the NRA is actively trying to silence about what exactly the 2nd Amendment really means.

"Gun owner" is not, in fact, synonymous with "harm-causing nutter."
Sure it isn't. But the crazy guy on the corner aiming a banana at me is harmless, while that same guy with a semi-automatic rifle with extended clips and several handguns in his shorts is a bloodbath waiting to happen. I don't possess a magic pill to cure all the sorts of crazy that crazy people suffer from. Some crazy people just pop into it suddenly anyways. On the other hand, I can reasonable say "If it were harder for people to purchase guns, then some people would be restrained from purchasing guns," which in turn would lead to "with less guns in circulation, less guns would be available for people to kill each other with." And yeah, crazy guy could grab a sharp stick, or a samurai sword, or a crossbow and go nuts with them - the crazy guy trying to kill people is no less crazy. But I think there's a legitimate conversation possible about how far we need to accommodate people at the risk of making it easier for crazy people (or not crazy people, any people whatsoever) have the best possible tools to kill the most people.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

You're never going to stop mass shootings.

Just like you're never going to be able to stop plagues.
Or drug/gun battles.
Or aggravated murders.
Or anything else involving humans and death (intentional or not).

since when is something that happens biologically, on par with what is generally not considered a common, much less inevitable, course of action...?

plagues happen as a result of a bacterium mutating (as they are wont to do) into a highly contagious lethal disease, and that is beyond human control. mass shootings? aka, the act of using your hands in tangent with your brain and a man-made weapon specifically designed for the task of killing things and attempting to destroy as many fellow humans as possible? not quite so beyond human control.

i cant change that viruses constantly mutate. i can change that highly lethal weaponry falls so easily into the hands of the malicious.

[qpldmff]

Personally, I'm opposed to the death penalty even in cases like this. I'm all for multiple life sentences with no chance of parole.

[fraroc]

I'd say, don't give him the death penalty. Death is the easy way out. Keep him alive, and make him live in the Hell that he created for himself and for the victims and their families. He's probably going to jail for the rest of his life, and he's basically Public Enemy No.1 right now.


But I swear, if he gets out like Casey Anthony, i'll REALLY lose faith in America, mabye even mankind.

[NaeShelle]

since when is something that happens biologically, on par with what is generally not considered a common, much less inevitable, course of action...

Since I decided to use it as an example of how impossible it would be to stop. Hence my adding, towards the end, that line about not being able to stop anything involving humans and death - intentional or not. (Plagues and other things we generally can't control falling into that whole "not" category)

i can change that highly lethal weaponry falls so easily into the hands of the malicious.

Please. Be sure to inform me when a logical, realistically implemented course of action becomes available that allows you to stop lethal weaponry (assuming you didn't mean it as it's literal definition) from falling easily into the hands of the malicious (which, in such a case as this one, you wouldn't even know was malicious).

Without, y'know, doing something unreasonable like making it harder for the rest of us. Blanket punishments have rarely served to make a situation better and definitely wouldn't in this case.

[Tempscire]

If they were a platform for "owners of nerve gas" and once a year some person that owned nerve gas lost it and killed the approximately 15,000 people a year that die from gun violence in a single "let's kill an entire small town" outburst, would it still seem okay?
Well, let's throw another orange in. Sometimes people go nuts and use their cars to deliberately kill people, too. Should every auto company and lobbyist and dealership be outlawed because once a year (ha, if only) someone deliberately uses a car as a weapon?

To elaborate on my 'orange' remark: guns can be used safely in a recreational fashion. Show me nerve gas being used (and capable of being used) in a similarly safe fashion.

The problem isn't that they're not supporting the people who kill other people with guns, it's that they're actively preventing people who would attempt to make gun ownership safer from accomplishing that mission because too ...
Sure. But that's not the same as them striving to put weapons in the hands of "nuts who want to do harm," the precise language of said statement being what I was really objecting to. I mean, I guess technically every gun-owner is doing 'harm,' even if it's just to paper... but I don't think anyone especially cares about damage to paper products outside of environmental reasons. People who break the law...break the law. They own the illegal guns, they commit murders. Sometimes non-law-breakers end up doing the same, but there aren't many incidents in which a minority breaking the law spoils everything for everyone (see again: cars).

To reiterate: the process to legally obtain a weapon is not: 1)are you mentally unstable? 2)do you want to hurt your fellow citizens and society at large? If yes to (1) and (2), receive assault rifle. If no, gtfo. All I was arguing. In your words, such an over-generalization is "a position with no nuance. It's not clever. It's obstructionist, not productive." And the NRA isn't quite the GOA, if we want to go pointing fingers at gun-rights organizations that seek no-holds-barred gun ownership.

But I think there's a legitimate conversation possible about how far we need to accommodate people at the risk of making it easier for crazy people (or not crazy people, any people whatsoever) have the best possible tools to kill the most people.
Sure, but I think technically this isn't the thread for that (since the OP was focused on this specific shooter and his specific punishment, as non-debatey as that is), so I wasn't going to try really getting into it here.

But I swear, if he gets out like Casey Anthony, i'll REALLY lose faith in America, mabye even mankind.
The Casey Anthony trial was arguably an example of the system working. The prosecutors pursued too high a charge without the evidence to back it up. The jury would have been irresponsible to call guilty on the charges they were pressing. Even so, that situation is nothing like this one, especially in terms of evidence.

[iCad]

If they were a platform for "owners of nerve gas" and once a year some person that owned nerve gas lost it and killed the approximately 15,000 people a year that die from gun violence in a single "let's kill an entire small town" outburst, would it still seem okay?

That's not exactly a fair comparison. Whatever one might think of the NRA, they are an organization defending something that is legal according to the US Constitution. There's nothing in said document about nerve gas, which...Well, I don't know, actually. Maybe it is legal to have it...but I doubt it. Sure, said document is a couple hundred years old, drafted when muskets were state-of-the-art, before they could conceive of handguns, let alone semi-automatic or automatic weapons, and times have changed and blah, blah. But the words are there and have not changed.

The VAST majority of NRA members are hunters and/or recreational target shooters. Another big group is collectors of old weapons, functional or otherwise. I'm an NRA member, and I'm a collector and a target shooter. I even have a sticker on my feed-haulin' snow-plowin' redneck truck. (But not on my faithful old Jag, because that would be tacky. ;) ) The vast majority are NOT loonies who want to stockpile assault rifles, et. al.

The problem isn't that they're not supporting the people who kill other people with guns, it's that they're actively preventing people who would attempt to make gun ownership safer from accomplishing that mission because too often they've got this implied notion that "if we give an inch, they'll take away all firearms forever." It's a position with no nuance. It's not clever. It's obstructionist, not productive. No one disagrees with the existence of the Second Amendment, but there is plenty of room within that legislation to have a conversation that the NRA is actively trying to silence about what exactly the 2nd Amendment really means.

As an NRA member, I actually agree with this. :) I do not always approve of the stand they take on things, any more than I always agree with or approve of the stand that Christians, another group to which I belong, take on things. I agree that gun ownership needs to be made safer and that doing so is not in contradiction with the Second Amendment. However, I think it needs to be done fairly to those of us who are law-abiding, sane gun owners/enthusiasts.

In any case (and the following isn't aimed at anyone in particular), here's something I've observed about American (and perhaps outside-of-America) attitudes toward American gun ownership: That they vary greatly depending on where one lives. If one is a city/'burb person, you're more likely not to understand why anyone would want/need a gun in this day and age. And I can see why: there, you don't really need one unless you're A) a criminal, B) a recreational hunter or target shooter, or C) someone who thinks that owning a gun is going to magically protect you from Group A.

But if you're from where I'm from (excessively rural Colorado), then you don't bat an eye, much less freak out, when someone's walking down the street or riding a horse with a rifle slung over their shoulder or they have a big ol' revolver hanging from their belt while grocery shopping.

Firstly, this is an "Old West" town, and during the actual Old West days, my town had a reputation for more rowdiness than usual even in those days, with outlaws like Butch Cassidy, who began his career in my hometown. (Some believe the town's name, Telluride, is a contraction of "To Hell You Ride.") And before you say "That was a long time ago,"...Well, in this area, it was less than 100 years ago, and so the attitude still prevails and a lot of people around here cling to it tenaciously. Guns are a part of that "culture." They're just...there. Not an object of horror or curiosity or, really, any reaction at all...unless you're a tourist who isn't used to the whole deal.

Also, our economy here is driven by A) Celebrities, unfortunately, B) Skiing, and C) Outdoor sports including hunting. Lots and LOTS of hunting of lots and lots of big game. The kind of game that you really don't want to face down without a Really Big Gun. I'm not a hunter, myself, and don't necessarily like it, but I do acknowledge that without guns and catering to hunters, a big part of our local economy would be nonexistent. So, since we're a hunting town/area, guns are just a part of life. Not something that causes concern or that needs to be "controlled" and not something to necessarily be afraid of. (I should note that our crime rate is extremely low. Non-celebrity people leave their houses/cars unlocked without a second thought, and I think the last time someone died violently at the hands of another here was...Gosh, 12 years ago, at least. And it WASN'T a gun death but a beating death. Yay. I'd rather be shot, frankly.) So, to some extent, attitudes towards guns and gun ownership is a cultural thing.

And, as I said, even if guns were ever outlawed...Well, then I'd be an outlaw. When I'm out hiking or trail riding with my horse, I bring my shotgun with me, in case of aggressive wildlife encounters. (The scariest encounter I've ever had was with a huge, rut-maddened bull elk when I was on foot.) And, of course, I'm a (small) rancher. I have livestock to defend from mountain lions and such, for which my alpacas are choice morsels. I've shot at mountain lions numerous times, never shooting to kill. Said livestock generates a good chunk of my livelihood, and that's even more the case for my neighbors, for whom ranching is not a job or a money-generating hobby but their entire life. And they have no other job.

So for us here, guns aren't something to be loony about. To a certain and very real extent, they drive our ecomony, both in terms of bringing in tourist hunters and also being used to protect livestock. I'd say that that holds true for a pretty big swath of rural America west of the Mississippi, where we can't farm due to climate but we can and do ranch, providing food (and other things) for y'all in the cities/'burbs. :)

So...I don't know what my point is, really. I guess I'm just trying to point out that guns are not only used to do harm. And, really, the number of responsible gun owners vastly outweighs either loonies who shoot up movie theaters and, I should think, criminals in general who do harm with a gun. (Unless you count hunting as "harm," of course; I meant, "harm to fellow human beings.") So it becomes a question of sanctioning/making things more difficult for all of those people in the hope of deterring a miniscule percentage of the population who might shoot up a movie theater. I'm more of the opinion that attempting to do so creates quite a bit of bureaucracy that will inconvenience people who obey the law and will mean nothing to those who flout the law anyway.

Will it deter those who decide that shooting up a movie theater would be a Really Good Idea? Perhaps. But in the grand scheme of things, for all the publicity they get, those people really are few and very far between. Also, since those who do this sort of thing tend to be highly intelligent loners, I tend to think they'll find a way around any barriers put in their way and, since they're loners, they'll do it in a way that people won't notice...until it's too late. I think that reactive sanctions put into place in response to what these people do are kind of fruitless when it comes to deterring future loonies. In response to Columbine, rules at trade shows -- Where those kids acquired most of their arsenal -- were tightened. In response to this case, Internet sales will likely be clamped down upon. But will that do any good in terms of deterring loonies, given that any future people of a similar mindset will simply know that those avenues are closed to them so they need to find another one? That's the question. I'm not saying that it shouldn't be done; loopholes should be closed, I think. However, I don't think doing so necessarily going to prevent anything in the future, precisely because such actions tend to be reactive.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

Since I decided to use it as an example of how impossible it would be to stop. Hence my adding, towards the end, that line about not being able to stop anything involving humans and death - intentional or not. (Plagues and other things we generally can't control falling into that whole "not" category)

except that you are wrong.
weapons are not on par with disease and illness. regardless of what humans do, mass illnesses will always happen. always.
weaponry? something that we, physically, create? yes. that is something we can control, something we can regulate, as that ball is in our court entirely.

the difference is, if all humans died out, mass illnesses would still develop.
guns, on the other hand, would not.


Please. Be sure to inform me when a logical, realistically implemented course of action becomes available that allows you to stop lethal weaponry (assuming you didn't mean it as it's literal definition) from falling easily into the hands of the malicious (which, in such a case as this one, you wouldn't even know was malicious).

Without, y'know, doing something unreasonable like making it harder for the rest of us. Blanket punishments have rarely served to make a situation better and definitely wouldn't in this case.

the key word was "easily". i never said i could make it impossible to ever get one illegally, god knows there will always be a loophole or an exploit. but simply making it so that guns arent basically handed out like candy, unquestioningly amassed by psychopaths who clearly* have an agenda? yeah, i think thats quite possible.
guns are not a force of nature. they can be controlled.

making it harder for "the rest of us" isnt exactly "unreasonable". name for me three everyday problems you use your gun to solve in your typical day, and i will reconsider how absolutely necessary possessing a gun must be. if youre going to say that making it more difficult to posses a potentially deadly substance toward a particular group of people is "unreasonable", i urge you to take this battle to the age limitations set on cars, liquor, and cigarettes as well.

*as in...building up something of a personal armory. who needs 5-6+ guns if theyre your everyday, law-abiding, totally-not-planning-something-big citizen?

[kiwi_tea]

So...I don't know what my point is, really. I guess I'm just trying to point out that guns are not only used to do harm. And, really, the number of responsible gun owners vastly outweighs either loonies who shoot up movie theaters and, I should think, criminals in general who do harm with a gun. (Unless you count hunting as "harm," of course; I meant, "harm to fellow human beings.") So it becomes a question of sanctioning/making things more difficult for all of those people in the hope of deterring a miniscule percentage of the population who might shoot up a movie theater. I'm more of the opinion that attempting to do so creates quite a bit of bureaucracy that will inconvenience people who obey the law and will mean nothing to those who flout the law anyway.

There are lots of items and substances, capable of doing enormous amounts of damage although for the most part being used responsibly that, in many countries, are restricted and strictly regulated to minimise the enormous risk they pose in the wrong hands. Few people who own guns actually need one, and those who own them for "self defense" are quite possibly as at risk of seeing their own gun used against them as they are of fending off an attacker with the weapon.

[iCad]

*as in...building up something of a personal armory. who needs 5-6+ guns if theyre your everyday, law-abiding, totally-not-planning-something-big citizen?

*raises hand* I have more than 50 guns, some of them inherited, most purchased over the past...oh, 25 years or so. True, many of them are not currently functional, but I have them. And I'm not planning on shooting anyone or anything, aside from targets. Why do I have multiple firearms, then? Mostly because I'm a collector, and the vintage guns I have tie in with an interest in certain historical periods. Some of my collection is very valuable, Civil-War-era stuff (All still functional.) Also, because I'm a competition shooter. I use different weapons for different kinds of competitions and for different weather conditions within those competitions, if they're held outdoors as opposed to on an indoor range.

Do I "need" these weapons? No. (Well, aside from shotguns that I do, indeed, use as protection for me and mine, against the abundant wildlife around here, from rattlesnakes to bears to mountain lions to large pissy herbivores.) Do I think it's wrong to have them? Again, no. And I know a lot of people like me, all of them stable and sane who enjoy collecting, target shooting, hunting, etc. Even people with massive firearm collections aren't necessarily dangerous. And while I might be the only person on this board who lives a rural, ranching lifestyle, so likely no one else will understand my mindset, the fact of the matter is that there are a LOT of people like me. There are way more people like me than there are wackos building up personal armories, I'd imagine. I would just like to see a solution to the problem of the loonies/people intending to do harm that doesn't mostly serve to inconvenience/criminalize people who are law-abiding and do no harm, even if they don't "need" a gun but simply enjoy owning them for whatever reason.

Few people who own guns actually need one...

Depends on what you mean by "need." "Need" as in, they're necessary to continue living...Probably not, not unless one is using hunting as one's sole means of feeding oneself, and I doubt that applies to many people. "Need" as in, they're necessary for protection? There's quite a lot of us, I think. As I said, I use mine quite frequently to fend off wildlife, as do most ranchers I know. True, ranchers might not be a huge percentage of the population, but I guarantee they'd be pretty ticked if they couldn't have a gun to defend their livestock (and themselves!) when necessary. (And if they couldn't do so with a gun, I guarantee you they'll resort to nastier forms of controlling wildlife that cause the critters more suffering, like inhumane traps, poisoning, etc....which might also endanger people.) I don't actually kill wildlife, myself, only fire warning shots to scare them off. However, I'm something of a rarity in that regard. Most ranchers aren't softies like me.

...and those who own them for "self defense" are quite possibly as at risk of seeing their own gun used against them as they are of fending off an attacker with the weapon.

People who have no idea how to use a gun or who are squeamish about using them have no business owning a gun for "self defense," as they are, indeed, more likely to be used against the gun owner. They're also likely to be poorly maintained, thus posing more danger to the owner and his/her household. This is why I advocating a licensing program, to help insure that people who buy a weapon know how to use and maintain it. (Note: This is not meant to deter criminals but to reduce the amount of accidental gun deaths/injuries, which are mostly caused by people who own guns but who don't know how to fire, maintain, and/or secure them properly.) For all that I own many guns, none of them are for "self-defense" against anything other than wildlife. Aside from some kept (unloaded, if they're functional) on display, they're kept in safes unless they're being used.

So I'm all for responsible gun ownership and I'm for a lot of the measures that the NRA is against. And the vast majority of gun owners ARE responsible. Unfortunately, those who aren't are the ones you hear about. And the sort of person that some of them are...Well, we can throw up all the barriers we want, and those folks will still get the gun(s) they want even if they were banned and were no longer being manufactured, and they would still use them just as irresponsibly.

[Tempscire]

name for me three everyday problems you use your gun to solve in your typical day, and i will reconsider how absolutely necessary possessing a gun must be.
'Food' as a general object is very necessary to my typical day, and I still couldn't give you three problems it solves besides "fueling my body." :p And since when did "absolute necessity" become the bottom line for doing anything?

who needs 5-6+ guns if theyre your everyday, law-abiding, totally-not-planning-something-big citizen?
What if they say they don't "need" those guns, they just want them? Does that change anything? Why would someone buy multiple bottles of liquors or wines if they're not an alcoholic?

[Mistermook]

Do I "need" these weapons? No.

So what you're saying is that you don't need your guns really, and therefore the point is still valid? Good.

[obino]

hahahahhahaha

[iCad]

So what you're saying is that you don't need your guns really, and therefore the point is still valid? Good.

No. (Good job with the out-of-context cherry-picking, though! ;) )

What I'm saying is that, while I (and many others) don't "need" a gun to survive under most circumstances (There've been times, though...), I see no reason why I/we, as (a) sane person(s) with no intent to harm any human being, should not have access to them within the confines of the law. Why must one show a "need" to have something that's completely legal to have before it's deemed OK or acceptable to have it? My housemate doesn't "need" her longbow, much less her repeating crossbow that she built herself, and she could do some serious bodily damage with either if she wanted to. (In her experienced hands, the crossbow shoots about one quarrel per second. That's about as fast as the average, non-expert person can squeeze off shots on an average semi-automatic hand gun.) But she has no intention of harming anything; she's just been into competitive archery since she was a little kid. Just as I've been into competitive target shooting and participating in things like biathlons, since I was a little kid. (I started shooting a little pellet rifle when I was about 5; my dad was a gun enthusiast as well as a hunter.)

[Mistermook]

No. (Good job with the out-of-context cherry-picking, though! ;) )
Really?
Do I "need" these weapons? No.
"Need" as in, they're necessary to continue living...Probably not, not unless one is using hunting as one's sole means of feeding oneself, and I doubt that applies to many people.
Then you talk about protection and how you're really only using your guns for making loud noises and making your feel better. I mean... how much more can you say "I don't really need these guns, I just like them, and because I like these things no one has the right to make sure I'm not murderous. My hobbies trump public safety. The things I like can kill people, but fuck you all."

Why must one show a "need" to have something that's completely legal to have before it's deemed OK or acceptable to have it?
Why do you believe you have the right to own deadly weapons without the public having a concern about that? I'd be concerned if you had a tiger in your house. I'd be concerned if you were cooking meth in your kitchen. I'm concerned if you've got lots of rats on your property that are posing a health risk.

You could have the safest tigers, never had any accidents cooking your meth, and your rats could be pristine and clean. As the public I have the right to verify that and make sure that is in fact the case, because you do not have the right to endanger others simply because you want to.

My housemate doesn't "need" her longbow, much less her repeating crossbow that she built herself, and she could do some serious bodily damage with either if she wanted to.
We're all so happy for you and your housemate with the deadly hobby.

"In my spare time I make pipe bombs and collect nuclear material. I study reports on how to best harm humans without actually killing them, because suffering is cool. But hey! Don't try to judge me! I'm perfectly safe! It's all in good fun!"

...But hey, let's not discuss society at large suggesting we verify all this. It's completely unreasonable that someone would regulate and come in to make sure people who have intrinsically deadly hobbies aren't plotting a personal mass murder apocalypse. How dare anyone step up and say "Get a new hobby. The one you're doing, sometimes shit goes wrong."

/sarcasm

Your roommate doesn't need a rocket launcher either, but most people aren't in favor of letting her have one because rocket launchers are dangerous. They kill people. Or rather, people with rocket launchers kill people with rocket launchers, which generally amounts to more people dead than if your roommate went crazy and started attacked people with her bow, or a fork, or angry words. Even if you were the world's greatest rocket launcher enthusiast ever, it wouldn't change the fact that rocket launchers are weapons. And honestly, I'm all for letting people who really, really, really want rocket launchers, or longbows, or guns, have them as long as we're also enthusiastically telling people who wake up one morning and think "You know what would be pretty cool? I could kill some people. That would be boss," to go stuff themselves.

Those guys are still off and if they're really, really, really nefarious they'll get past just about anything and still end up with something to promote their fountains of blood and rivers of death agenda. But if only a fourth of the people who want guns for the purposes of killing people were denied weapons by background checks and extra regulation that would be several thousand people alive at the end of the year that statistically would be dead otherwise, all because you and your roommate really "like" your guns. I "like" my computer, but I don't think I'd get a pass for owning my PC if my ownership was causing me to have this stupid moral disconnect that was getting thousands of people dead each year.

Honestly, the obstinacy on the part of gun owners wonders what sort of moral dysfunction you guys have. Each year we try to make our cars safer. We keep hiring police to make out neighborhoods safer. We cook food to prevent e coli, because that makes it safer. You look both ways before you cross the street, because that's a reasonable thing to do to prevent yourself from getting run over. But say one word about just putting more checks and balances onto owning a gun, which is a tool designed specifically to kill things with? You get some person diverting the conversation to crossbows. For the record, if thousands of people were being killed with crossbows? I'd be coming for the damned crossbows too. You do not have the unrestricted, holy and sacrosanct right to own things for your hobbies when those hobbies are contributing to the deaths of significant amounts of people. You being sad because someone would make it harder to own a gun is not a compelling argument against people living who otherwise would die. Basically you own guns and weapons because you have a lark for them. Someone says "These are bad, they kill people. People look to steal these and kill people with them," and you basically throw up your hands and defend murder in the name of your hobby.

I'm not even saying you shouldn't have your hobbies, just that the rest of the world doesn't owe you the right of that hobby being easy to pursue. How many people have to die before owning a gun stops being so neat that you think you deserve to have one without everyone else being concerned?

[Tempscire]

Then you talk about protection and how you're really only using your guns for making loud noises and making your feel better. I mean... how much more can you say "I don't really need these guns, I just like them, and because I like these things no one has the right to make sure I'm not murderous. My hobbies trump public safety. The things I like can kill people, but fuck you all."
I don't think iCad has ever said anything that could be interpreted as, "no one has the right to make sure I'm not murderous." Based on my quick re-read of her recent posts, I'm pretty sure she's said just the opposite.

"Get a new hobby. The one you're doing, sometimes shit goes wrong."
Because a minority causes shit to go wrong, no one gets to do that hobby, ever. Sometimes shit goes wrong with bungee jumping and sky diving, too. Some people race cars for fun and shit goes wrong there, too. They're prohibited from racing on public streets for the safety of others, but that's analogous to people being allowed to shoot at ranges (i.e. particular places designated as okay to do the dangerous activity in a controlled environment). Yet you (general you) don't say they shouldn't be allowed to own cars at all, that they're obviously unstable for even owning for than one in the first place, that because a few people still break the law to race illegally, no one anywhere ever should be allowed to race.

"In my spare time I make pipe bombs and collect nuclear material. I study reports on how to best harm humans without actually killing them, because suffering is cool. But hey! Don't try to judge me! I'm perfectly safe! It's all in good fun!"
That's some fine false equivalency. Yes, because owning a gun is exactly the same as collecting nuclear material or proactively studying how to torture people. Exaaaaactly the same. Especially since the statistics show that every gun owner became a crazed sociopathic torturer-murderer before their deaths, right?

Your roommate doesn't need a rocket launcher either, but most people aren't in favor of letting her have one because rocket launchers are dangerous. They kill people.
People generally aren't in favor if people having a rocket launcher not because it's dangerous and can kill people (again, cars! or kitchen knives or bricks or garden shovels or chains or electric drills...). It's excessive firepower for a simple hobbyist or hunter, and it's more difficult to set aside safe places to practice using it.

And honestly, I'm all for letting people who really, really, really want rocket launchers, or longbows, or guns, have them as long as we're also enthusiastically telling people who wake up one morning and think "You know what would be pretty cool? I could kill some people. That would be boss," to go stuff themselves.
Uh... has anyone in any gun debate ever suggested it would be cool to go murder people? (And I do mean murder, as opposed to "kill," which could include the oft-cited situations of lethal self defense.) That murder wasn't bad or wrong if it was done with an a-okay gun? I mean, I'm skeptical here. No one tells people anything other than to "go stuff themselves" for thinking murder is coolio. I'm not sure why you'd even jokingly suggest otherwise, and I certainly doubt your disclaimer that you'd actually be cool with people owning whatever weapons.

But if only a fourth of the people who want guns for the purposes of killing people were denied weapons by background checks and extra regulation that would be several thousand people alive at the end of the year that statistically would be dead otherwise, all because you and your roommate really "like" your guns.
You're sort of arguing about two different things here. Do you want to see more regulation over gun ownership, or do you want to see no one allowed to own any guns at all? I'd presume that both iCad and her roommate are not and have not killed any people with their assortment of weaponry. Them "liking" their guns and legally owning and using them does NOT contribute to the murders of other people. Owning a gun, in and of itself, is safe and legal. How it's used is the sticking point.

And you know what? I bet that if your (specious) assertion about all the people going out and getting guns expressly for the purpose of killing people -- not that they buy them for one and on some later date go crazy for someone, but that they're only buying guns just to go kill someone-- ...well, murder is already illegal. If there are a significant portion of gun-owners who only own guns just to kill someone, chances are not having a gun is not going to keep many or most of them from killing that someone.

But say one word about just putting more checks and balances onto owning a gun, which is a tool designed specifically to kill things with?
Again, iCad has never said anything, to my recollection, that any checks and balances on gun purchases was awful. No one has. You are here constructing and fighting a strawman.

How many people have to die before owning a gun stops being so neat that you think you deserve to have one without everyone else being concerned?
Constitutionally-protected right. Until that is changed, actually, people (Americans, anyway) do kinda "deserve" to have guns of some sort. Again it sounds like you're conflating gun control with gun abolition, btw. Which are you actually arguing for? (Keep in mind that it's not as though there is zero gun control as it is at present, so really I guess it's a matter of more gun control vs. abolition.)

Also, while not a perfect comparison, I realize, yet still I turn to it: cars kill crap tons of people each year. When will car-owners stop thinking they're so neat and turn to public transport to reduce the number of cars on the roads and therefore the number of fatal car accidents? Even with all the safety efforts you mention, more people still die in car accidents than by firearms (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm). (Actually, apparently more people are poisoned to death than die by firearms.)

[iCad]

@Mistermook: I was going to write a big old point-by-point rebuttal...but I don't have to because Tempscire said pretty much everything that I was going to say, particularly the stuff about that big ol' strawman you built there, plus some stuff about faulty equivalency. And she did so likely more concisely than I would have. If you're going to put words into my mouth and say that I said things that I never said or meant anything other than what I actually said and then imply that I'm out to kill people or that I advocate allowing people to kill other people, then there's really no point in continuing this conversation with you because, for whatever reason, you're just not hearing what I'm saying.

[RoseCity]

I thought this was an interesting opinion piece on the topic - Drawing the Wrong Lessons from Horrific Events (http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/31/opinion/schneier-aurora-aftermath/index.html)
I liked the end -
Because people overreact to rare events, they're useful catalysts for social introspection and policy change. The key here is to focus not on the details of the particular event but on the broader issues common to all similar events.
Installing metal detectors at movie theaters doesn't make sense -- there's no reason to think the next crazy gunman will choose a movie theater as his venue, and how effectively would a metal detector deter a lone gunman anyway? -- but understanding the reasons why the United States has so many gun deaths compared with other countries does. The particular motivations of alleged killer James Holmes aren't relevant -- the next gunman will have different motivations -- but the general state of mental health care in the United States is.

Even with this, the most important lesson of the Aurora massacre is how rare these events actually are. Our brains are primed to believe that movie theaters are more dangerous than they used to be, but they're not. The riskiest part of the evening is still the car ride to and from the movie theater, and even that's very safe.

But wear a seat belt all the same.