Shootings reported at Batman premiere

[johncocker]

seems to work ok in swizerland

Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture yet its got one of the lowest gun crime rate's in the world is so low that statistics are not even kept.

 

 

The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols.

 

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

Edited July 20, 2012 by johncocker

[Jag82]

Nice idea, but...

 

1) Easier access to guns would make it easier for people like Breivik to get hold of weaponry to do such things

2) Easier access to guns makes it easier for people to copycat "successful" gunmen like Breivik.

3) Most (including Breivik) gunmen doing things like this aren't bothered about being shot / killed, so it doesn't put them off (Breivik wanted and expected to die as a martyr).

4) Most (including Breivik) gunmen doing things like this come prepared. Body armour, night vision / IR goggles / smoke grenades can all give the assailant a massive advantage over civilians trying to take down a gunman

5) [Most importantly] In the chaos that surrounds these types of incidents, having additional weaponry is likely to end up with many more innocents shot, especially after someone else starts shooting - how does someone else know who was the original perp, and who's their saviour? Don't worry, shoot both. Oh, I just missed and shot that girl instead.

 

Yes, if someone had given Breivik what he wanted and shot him, there might have been fewer deaths, equally, there could have been many more.

 

1)They will always acquire weapons.

 

2)Easier to defend against copycats who will also always acquire weapons.

 

3) If they want to be martyred so be it, let's make it easier to martyr them.

 

4) One can only do ones best in the circumstances, being armed with a strawberry mivvi against guns/smoke bombs/night vision goggles is a somewhat greater disadvantage than being armed with a .38 or 9mm against guns/smoke bombs/night vision goggles.

 

5) Always a possibility perhaps the SAS should use strawberry mivvis and resort to stern language.

[mort]

Right the bickering can stop right now please. If it continues then I will be happy to hand out bans.

[Shoesme]

Innocent people have died because a murderer went to the pictures armed.

 

Had some decent people been armed the murderer may well have been killed before exacting the death toll he did.

 

The logic of your post is that the evil will always carry arms and hurt people, those that are decent and humane shouldn't bear arms ergo the humane and decent must not only go in fear of their own lives but they must be prevented from aiding their fellow man in the event of something like this.

 

There are none so blind as those that will not see.

 

This recently happened in America, two would be robbers enter a internet cafe, an old man carrying a weapon fights back. The link is of the shooting but isn't graphic, mild peril perhaps.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1t5f5AwkkiY

 

Guns scare the hell out of me no matter who is carrying them though.

[dosxuk]

1)They will always acquire weapons.

 

No they won't. Making it difficult to get a gun will cause a lot of angry people to find other alternatives to vent their anger. For example, there will be people in the UK who think that this guy in the US did something fun today, and would contemplate doing it if they were in the US and could just go to the shop and get a gun. As they're here, they won't bother, and just sit and watch Eastenders instead.

 

5) Always a possibility perhaps the SAS should use strawberry mivvis and resort to stern language.

 

If I was ever caught up between two sides in a gun fight, I'd rather it had trained professionals trying to take down the baddie, than a load of fat blokes who like shooting tin cans in their back garden having a go at being a hero.

 

 

 

There is no way on earth I can ever understand the idea of "the way to reduce the number of people shot, is to increase the number of people shooting".

[frank ryan]

theres no point arguing with gun heads - they have infantile beliefs in 'good' and 'evil' without understanding of the roles of alcohol, mental illness, anger frustration feelings of humiliation etc in volent behaviour -they are emotionally and sexually inadequate and fill the void in their personalities with the sense of power handling guns give them.

 

the deaths of 15,000 americans a year (many accidental an suicidal) from guns striks them as well worth it in return for the thrill of having military weaponry in their bedrooms they think that kids sent on camping or cinema trips should have automatic weapons 'just in case' a nazi or psychopath turns up -they are deluded and beneath contempt.

[Shoesme]

Being at the cinema or wherever in public and knowing that loads of people were carrying guns wouldn't make me feel any safer at all, in fact it'd do the opposite.

[Darth Vader]

Either way: shooting people (not in war) is wrong.

It's wrong if a "career criminal" or "crazed maniac" does it; it's wrong if a "law-abiding citizen" does it.

 

Shooting people is wrong. War is no excuse.

[janie48]

A tragic event,there have been many gun crimes in the US that have resulted in death, but because they have not happened on such a huge scale as this they don't get reported globally.

I dread to think what it would be like here if guns were legal.

[Bypassblade]

A tragic event,there have been many gun crimes in the US that have resulted in death, but because they have not happened on such a huge scale as this they don't get reported globally.

I dread to think what it would be like here if guns were legal.

 

It does not bear thinking about, Dunblane & Hungerford, to name 2 were terrible enough. How long though before someone calls for the film to be banned? blaming it for the tragedy, silly but true.