Am i the only one with NO empathy for the Cinema Massacre?

Post Reply New Topic

The guy had lots of explosives. I'm pretty sure if he didn't have a gun he would have just blown the place up.

What we have here is the pervasive American mentality that its 'people who kill people, not guns'. I think anyone could agree that removing guns would make it a hell of a lot harder to do the killing. Yes, homemade firearms can be made but selling guns in supermarkets so that they are as easy to obtain as chocolate bars is hardly helping to keep them out of the wrong hands.

You say you want to keep guns in the hands of ordinary citizens, well with that comes with having to allow potential mass murderers access to them too. You cant have your cake and eat it.

I know removing guns out of american circulation is easier said than done and what should be done seldomly resembles what is going to happen, but its either that or such massacres are going to continue. Its the whole stupidity of the situation which tires my ability to be empathetic.

Selling guns in grocery stores? Where are these grocery stores you speak of? About the only place that sells both around here is Wal Mart and they sell a little bit of everything. You Europeans have a distorted view of the role of guns in the US. Then again, Europe thought the Euro was a good idea too...

Lets not start with the stereotypes, please. From our "europeans" viewpoint, all americans think norway is the capital of sweden, which we view as rather ignorant. The distorted views go both ways.

Sorry, international difference in terms here. In this country, shops like Walmart are referred to as 'supermarkets'. Our supermarkets sell a little bit of everything too. If guns were legal, they'd probably have them as well. I never said 'grocery stores'.


Not at all. I have a very realist view of the role of guns in the US, the same role they have in any other country.

Guns have one role and one role only, and that is to send hot chunks of lead tearing through peoples internal organs. They have no other role or use.


Thats such a poor analogy i'm not sure where to start.

Point 1- when was the last massacre caused by the euro?

Point 2- it wasn't a bad idea in principle, there were complicated economic factors at play such as the cavalier attitude of the bankers towards casino investing and a indifferent financial regulation system that allowed them to get away with it.

*Sits at desk while watching the logic train slowly derail*

I've been looking up murder rates and percentages of firearms used but it's imposable to make a connection to violent crime and firearms. Yes there are more firearms homicides in the US but there are also far more homicides in the US in general. The UK has had statistically lower gun crime than the US even before the strict gun laws that are found there now.

I did find according to the BBC news and others that gun crime seems to be on the rise in britain

"Met police figures show 48% rise in gun crime in London" 2008
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/engl ... 473029.stm

"According to Home Office figures, there were 59 firearms-related homicides in 2006-07 compared with 49 in the previous year. That is an increase of 18% in just one year." 2010
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6960431.stm

"London gun crime rises as shootings nearly double" 2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/nov/0 ... tings-rise

I don't feel any sadness about the massacre. If it happened to somebody I knew, then yes, I would feel sad. But I can't feel sad every time I hear about something bad happening somewhere in the world.

No, here they are also used for target shooting, collecting and hunting. Not everyone who owns a gun wishes to kill other people. Most just don't want other people killing them or other innocent parties.

As for the Euro killing people, just wait until it falls apart. The civil unrest and poverty that causes will kill more than it's fair share of people. While I think we will agree about the role of the banksters in bringing this about, I think the Euro was a structurally bad idea to begin with. In the end, it will be just another excuse for the bankers to steal wealth and value from average people and put it in their pockets. It, like the US Federal Reserve Bank, was designed to do just that from the beginning.

Target shooting to what end? To practice shooting people. Yes target shooting is a sport, however you don't need live ammunition for this. There are perfectly passable non lethal alternatives such as air rifles and BB guns.

Again, for aesthetic purposes its not necessary to own a live gun. Replicas are just as available.


Sure, we also have game hunting here in Europe but its strictly under controlled circumstances and guns are kept under lock and key under the strict supervision of gun clubs. I know that in the United States you could argue that guns are necessary for protection against bears and mountain lions, but the counter is that if man weren't encroaching on their territory then never the twain need meet.

There was a famous Irish poet called Oscar Wilde who once wrote "it is inexcusable to kill the inedible" or words to that effect.

we all can't be city slickers, IOW some of us have to live in the country, and out in the sticks where i live there are nasty critters that occasionally must be fended-off.

You seem to be of the opinion that there is no justifiable reason to shoot people, animals or targets unless it's with BB guns. That may work where you live but where I live that just gets you dead or hungry.

You seem to have not read my post correctly because I didn't say that or anything remotely close to that effect. I already said that in Europe, we do hunting with live ammo for meat BUT its under strictly controlled circumstances. Only legally licensed clubs and gun owners can legally own and use live guns and ammunition. One of the few legal exceptions here being shotgun owning farmers.

I said that BB guns or airguns should be considered as an alternative to live guns in competitive sports (as in sports that aren't specifically for food).



Come on, i dont buy for a minute that the only habitations you have there are inner city duplexes or log cabins in the remotest depths of the Rocky forests. What about the in-between? Out of city suburban small towns and villages?

I very much doubt that rural dwellers there constitute anything more than the tiniest of minorities.

For those who do not feel sad about what happened, by your own logic, no one should feel sad about you being bullied, or treated bad in general. Afterall, they don't know you, so why should they care about yout. And by that logic, you should have no anger inside of you that no one cares about you, because, well, they do not know you and by your own logic, they are well withing their right not to care anything about you.

Actually, about 50% of the US population does not live in the cities. Many of us want nothing to do with the suburbs and all of those people living around us. We prefer to be far enough away from the city dwellers that when it all goes to crap, they will starve or die before they got to where we live. Think of what it would be like if we saw a repeat of the Carrington Event of 1859, and all of a sudden all of the electronics were fried. The cities would become killing fields as all of those people all of a sudden could not get food. I want to be nowhere near these people if that ever happens.

MoT, that doesn't follow. Who said "no one should feel sad", or even that they personally wouldn't feel sad if they were closer to the event in some way? I don't think that someone on the other side of the country who reads about how I was bullied in the past should be expected to cry over it, either. There's a big difference between that and being there at the time, able to intervene and doing nothing.