Originally Posted by Chris23

Yeah umm,,, highly doubt the guy that killed 12 people and injured 58 has a guilty conscience. If anything, he likely told the cops about the booby traps to instill a sense of fear.

Yeah, you're probably right...

i could see someone having a guilty conscious after killing some people. just because you think they're psychos doesn't mean they don't feel guilt.

Originally Posted by Silver

i could see someone having a guilty conscious after killing some people. just because you think they're psychos doesn't mean they don't feel guilt.

I could maybe agree with you if it was one person. But this guy lit up an entire movie theatre, and showed no signs of remorse either in the prison or at the first court session. Criminals of this kind have been psychiatrically proven to lack the capability of showing remorse. In my opinion i dont think he will ever regret his decision. If he doesnt get the death penalty, i hope he does grow to regret it, so that he can live with it during his life sentence.

Well if you're gonna be speculating, you gotta go big or go home.
http://gawker.com/5928451/here-are-t...iracy-theories

LMFAO some of those american conspiracy theorists are completely out to lunch. Thanks for that post Twelve Chars! made for a good laugh during my lunch break

Originally Posted by Chris23

I could maybe agree with you if it was one person. But this guy lit up an entire movie theatre, and showed no signs of remorse either in the prison or at the first court session. Criminals of this kind have been psychiatrically proven to lack the capability of showing remorse. In my opinion i dont think he will ever regret his decision. If he doesnt get the death penalty, i hope he does grow to regret it, so that he can live with it during his life sentence.

yea, but you kind of made it seem like all murderers dont feel guilty. thats what i got out of your posts so far.

Originally Posted by Alexmahone

The US has 300 million people, so there will be at least a million nutjobs at any time. It's not possible for society to treat all these people. The problem is the guns.

"It's not possible for society" - no, it's completely possible, there's just not enough money going into centres created for people with mental issues. Because you know, in the US, that isn't nearly as important as spending for the military to go off to random countries overseas and cause problems there.

There's also the problem that all these old people have stigmatized anyone with mental issues and made it harder for them to actually receive help.

"The problem is the guns." - this is a childish viewpoint. So you're telling me without a gun he could not have done any of this? He could have found someone sleeping, and stabbed them in the eye with a pair of scissors. Or used a utility knife. Or a baseball bat when he found someone alone in the park. What about making a home-made explosive device? (which is fairly easy to do). The only difference is that he could not have killed so many people so quickly, but anyone can kill someone else using anything. Should we ban regular household products, including sports items, utility knives, and scissors?

Feel free to argue that a gun's only purpose is to kill. Sure, in an ideal world, we would have no guns. But they exist, and they are easy to obtain. If they weren't easy to obtain, that doesn't mean no one would have them, it just means no innocent, law-abiding citizen would have them. It's like DRM for games - it only hurts people who follow the system, but it doesn't do anything to pirates. If guns were 'outlawed' all it means is that no one would have them except the criminals/mentally disturbed people that individuals are trying to protect themselves from.

Instead of focusing on how guns are easily obtainable why not focus on why this guy wasn't able to get proper mental health support when he (presumably) needed it?

EDIT: Please note that I am actually very much against guns, just acting as Devil's Advocate here because it's fun.

Originally Posted by Silver

yea, but you kind of made it seem like all murderers dont feel guilty. thats what i got out of your posts so far.

Once again as i said, if you murder a person, sure you can feel guilt for it. But this guy went in and shot someone dead, he did not stop, he continued walking the aisles shooting lead into countless defenceless people. He has been reported as showing no remorse, spitting at the guards in his isolated cell. This man has no remorse for what he has done.
To be honest, i dont really care if you show remorse if youre a murderer, remorse wont bring back a murdered victim, nothing can be done to put those families back together as a whole. Thats one thing I think the americans have right. If you take a life, why should you get to still live your own, even if it is in prison.

Can someone explain to me why Americans are SO DEFENSIVE about their right to bear arms? Like if you even hint that you think that shouldnt be a right they will be mortally offended. Do they think if that right is taken away that they will be living life like a 3rd world citizen or something?
Or is it simply the fact that a right is would be taken away?

Is there some example, a Canadian version of this, that would help me wrap my head around this?

Originally Posted by Melanieee

Can someone explain to me why Americans are SO DEFENSIVE about their right to bear arms? Like if you even hint that you think that shouldnt be a right they will be mortally offended. Do they think if that right is taken away that they will be living life like a 3rd world citizen or something?
Or is it simply the fact that a right is would be taken away?

Is there some example, a Canadian version of this, that would help me wrap my head around this?

Imagine, because some jerk's cellphone keeps going on in your class, and some other jerk's laptop keeps making noise, your professor bans all electronics.

Before, it was fine if you carried any electronics with you, and yours have never made a sound. But now, even though you had no say in the matter, and haven't done anything wrong, one of your rights has been removed.

Your argument is that you wanted your cell phone just in case, but nope, they say no, you can't have it, because someone else can use a cell phone to annoy others. You tell them your cell phone is always on vibrate, and won't ever annoy others! But nope, you can't have it anymore.

Similarly, most people who have a gun never use it. It's there for protection, in case. So that if someone breaks into a person's house, that person can defend themselves instead of being completely at the mercy of someone who got a gun illegally anyway. But because a few insane people acquire a gun (and I'm sure it's often illegally acquired anyway), apparently all guns are bad and everyone who legally has one has to give it up.

Originally Posted by Alchemist11

Imagine, because some jerk's cellphone keeps going on in your class, and some other jerk's laptop keeps making noise, your professor bans all electronics.

Before, it was fine if you carried any electronics with you, and yours have never made a sound. But now, even though you had no say in the matter, and haven't done anything wrong, one of your rights has been removed.

Your argument is that you wanted your cell phone just in case, but nope, they say no, you can't have it, because someone else can use a cell phone to annoy others. You tell them your cell phone is always on vibrate, and won't ever annoy others! But nope, you can't have it anymore.

Similarly, most people who have a gun never use it. It's there for protection, in case. So that if someone breaks into a person's house, that person can defend themselves instead of being completely at the mercy of someone who got a gun illegally anyway. But because a few insane people acquire a gun (and I'm sure it's often illegally acquired anyway), apparently all guns are bad and everyone who legally has one has to give it up.

The fact that you are comparing a cellphone to a gun is ridiculous. A ban on electronics in classrooms is to benefit the education of others that it may distract. Guns dont distract people, they kill people. Guess what, there is gun violence in Canada too, does that mean that there should be a gun in every household to stop it? how does this sound to you, people are using guns to harm people. so our solution is put more guns into the streets and homes to solve the problem, does that make any sense? no. Gun violence would still occur regardless of whether or not the victim has a gun of their own.
But in no way does your analogy of comparing cell phone bans to gun bans make any logical sense. Thats like a doctor saying that he would treat a paper cut the same way he would treat a severed appendage... they are both just flesh wounds right? (sarcasm here, because im sure someone will take that seriously and try calling it out)

Originally Posted by Melanieee

Can someone explain to me why Americans are SO DEFENSIVE about their right to bear arms? Like if you even hint that you think that shouldnt be a right they will be mortally offended. Do they think if that right is taken away that they will be living life like a 3rd world citizen or something?
Or is it simply the fact that a right is would be taken away?

Is there some example, a Canadian version of this, that would help me wrap my head around this?

They have deranged nightmares about the government controlling them. Its a combination of the British controlling the early United States and the Reds Under the Bed era/paranoia. The idea is that the more socialistic/communistic a country comes, the less individual freedom you have, and the more equalized everybody is, which is 'arguably on par' with living in a third world country. Americans think that by having easy access to firearms (similar to the minute men of early revolutionary united states) they can stave off this takeover of their country and freedoms.

Originally Posted by Chris23

The fact that you are comparing a cellphone to a gun is ridiculous. A ban on electronics in classrooms is to benefit the education of others that it may distract. Guns dont distract people, they kill people. Guess what, there is gun violence in Canada too, does that mean that there should be a gun in every household to stop it? how does this sound to you, people are using guns to harm people. so our solution is put more guns into the streets and homes to solve the problem, does that make any sense? no. Gun violence would still occur regardless of whether or not the victim has a gun of their own.
But in no way does your analogy of comparing cell phone bans to gun bans make any logical sense. Thats like a doctor saying that he would treat a paper cut the same way he would treat a severed appendage... they are both just flesh wounds right? (sarcasm here, because im sure someone will take that seriously and try calling it out)

Don't take everything so literal. He made that analogy to make a comparison that would make sense to melanieee

Originally Posted by Chris23

The fact that you are comparing a cellphone to a gun is ridiculous. A ban on electronics in classrooms is to benefit the education of others that it may distract. Guns dont distract people, they kill people. Guess what, there is gun violence in Canada too, does that mean that there should be a gun in every household to stop it? how does this sound to you, people are using guns to harm people. so our solution is put more guns into the streets and homes to solve the problem, does that make any sense? no. Gun violence would still occur regardless of whether or not the victim has a gun of their own.
But in no way does your analogy of comparing cell phone bans to gun bans make any logical sense. Thats like a doctor saying that he would treat a paper cut the same way he would treat a severed appendage... they are both just flesh wounds right? (sarcasm here, because im sure someone will take that seriously and try calling it out)

OK, let's do it your way. We ban all guns. Now instead of getting shot someone scoops your eye out with a utility knife and cooks it on your stove and serves it in a nice potato stew.

Gun violence would still occur regardless of whether or not the victim has a gun of their own.

Yes, and violence will still occur whether we have guns or not.

I guess I'm not really arguing for or against guns. I'm more-so noting that "guns are the problem" is a silly way of thinking and banning guns won't actually stop crimes from happening. Criminals can still acquire them, and even if they couldn't, there are other ways to commit violent acts.

And yes, as Ryan said, it was an analogy to relate to Melanie, who I assume uses laptops and cellphones and, if she's like most of us, could not live without them. But thanks for taking it literally and saying they aren't identical.

Originally Posted by Alchemist11

OK, let's do it your way. We ban all guns. Now instead of getting shot someone scoops your eye out with a utility knife and cooks it on your stove and serves it in a nice potato stew.



Yes, and violence will still occur whether we have guns or not.

I guess I'm not really arguing for or against guns. I'm more-so noting that "guns are the problem" is a silly way of thinking and banning guns won't actually stop crimes from happening. Criminals can still acquire them, and even if they couldn't, there are other ways to commit violent acts.

And yes, as Ryan said, it was an analogy to relate to Melanie, who I assume uses laptops and cellphones and, if she's like most of us, could not live without them. But thanks for taking it literally and saying they aren't identical.

ignoring the rest of what you said, this line defines everything perfectly. it doesnt matter if you are for or against guns, they are a part of society and from the moment they were introduced to us, there was no going back. I just dont think the answer to guns is putting them in everyones home. Violence will never go away, just like terrorism cant ever be fully stopped, there will always be those wanting to stab a knife into society to watch people squirm. Sadly enough thats the reality we live in.

Originally Posted by Chris23

ignoring the rest of what you said, this line defines everything perfectly. it doesnt matter if you are for or against guns, they are a part of society and from the moment they were introduced to us, there was no going back. I just dont think the answer to guns is putting them in everyones home. Violence will never go away, just like terrorism cant ever be fully stopped, there will always be those wanting to stab a knife into society to watch people squirm. Sadly enough thats the reality we live in.

I just dont think the answer to guns is putting them in everyones home.

Oh yeah, I agree. This is why even if I had a licence (or it was legal or whatever) I wouldn't really have a firearm in my house. I'm not a huge fan and I wish there were fewer guns around.

It's just that, if I knew you, and you wanted a firearm, and you kept it safe/locked up, then I assume it would never be used unless it was in self defence. And if that's the case, then can I really blame you for wanting one? Would I hate you forever and never talk to you again? No, it's your choice, as long as it's legal. And I think that's an important bit - whatever motivates you to have one, if it's legal, then it's your choice, and I can't take that away from you even if I personally didn't like guns.

Either way though I don't think there's an easy answer. If it were something obvious and simple to reduce crime then it would have been done already. The solutions are either expensive/time consuming, or pseudo-solutions that seem easy but don't help.