Aurora Colorado Violence

Despite the fact that I'm from Texas, and I can still see that in some circumstances the death penalty seems more than warranted... I can no longer support it, for lots of reasons, not the least of which is the gusto with which is enacted in some states more so than others, and sometimes in circumstances that are by no means "beyond reasonable doubt". I.e. any system run by humans will have failures, and I don't want my grandchildren or other loved ones to end up one of those accidents.The European Convention on Human Rights prohibits capital punishment, and I personally believe that is a stance which the world as a whole ought to eventually adopt. That's just my opinion.excerpt from European Convention on Human Rights - Wikipedia

quote:

---

ECHR: (European Convention on Human Rights)
Protocol 6 - restriction of death penalty
Requires parties to restrict the application of the death penalty to times of war or "imminent threat of war".
Every Council of Europe member state has signed and ratified Protocol 6, except Russia who has signed but not ratified.

​

Protocol 13 - complete abolition of death penalty
Provides for the total abolition of the death penalty.[30] As of May 2011 the majority of the Council of Europe has ratified Protocol 13. Poland and Armenia have signed but not ratified the protocol, whilst Russia and Azerbaijan have not signed it.[31]

---

Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.Edited by Briterican, : added to the quote and credited it

quote:

---

An AR-15 rifle that someone can buy in the USA without special licensing is still a semi-automatic rifle and not an assault weapon. For each shot you need to pull the trigger, there is no automatic or even three shot burst mode.
The media is as usual simply showing its ********* by calling it an assault rifle.
  —jar

---

I still wonder why anyone would need such a thing, if not to kill human beings.

In reply to no-one in particular... when will America shed its frontier mentality?Why are guns so worshipped, their ownership being viewed as a god-given right?Every society draws the line somewhere on what "arms" it allows to proliferate within its borders. You can't have nukes. You can't have a patriot missile in your garden. So why the F should you be able to have a weapon like this?It's a legitimate question. I spent 35 years in Texas, and NEVER cared for guns. Never understood why something that has only one real purpose (killing living things) was considered so glamorous. Sure, I went hunting... single shot shotgun... you can own one of those here in the UK for hunting with a permit. What are you guys hunting that you need an AR-15 for? And, you're honestly comfortable with the ease with which such a compact death machine can be obtained by your fellow citizens? Even knowing those fellow citizens the way you do?I just don't get it... I never did when I lived there... I definitely don't now. And I'm definitely not the only one.The argument ignores reality. The argument says "you can kill someone with a brick, should we ban bricks?" The argument boils it down to "who is the government to tell me I can't have this?" for many of you. Well guess what, there's a lot of things the government tells you you can't have. That's the price you pay for living in a (relatively) civilised 21st century society.So... tell me again why you need an AR-15 any more than you need a cruise missile battery?Edited by Briterican, : "you're" not "your", dumbass

quote:

---

Military weapons are made to be accurate, reliable, easy to carry, effective, and versatile. Can you explain why these are illegitimate design goals for a civilian weapon, as well?
  —crashfrog

---

Because the military is supposed to be armed to the teeth, to protect its citizens from foreign invasion (well, that's where it originates, but the 21st century has made even that a dubious concept), whereas civilians aren't at war and don't need to be armed to the teeth?

I view the problem as one of proliferation.The laws have been the way they are for so long now, and the culture (with the 2nd Amendment klaxons blaring) has accepted, condoned, and even glorified firearms for so long now, that proliferation is huge. Weapons are everywhere. Makes it a lot easier for idiots to cause mayhem.TO YOU HUNTERS...Is hunting so important to you that you are OKAY with all of your fellow citizens being able to arm themselves to the teeth, and then consume massive amounts of alcohol at 3am? These are both legal there yes? Good combination? Bad combination? Is HUNTING that important to you?It might be fun, it might even be necessary in some regions for culling populations, or from defence from wildlife... but does that mean the entire nation, every city street and alleyway should be armed to the teeth? Is HUNTING that important to you?HUNTING seems to be the only sliver of a thread of justification any of you can come up with for ownership of an arsenal that is well beyond any reasonable hunting endeavour.Edited by Briterican, : added last para

quote:

---

"Well, no. The military is supposed to be armed with what they need to carry out the mission."

---

- for which "overwhelming force" is a proven doctrine.... hence armed to the teeth.

quote:

---

Um, really? You might want to ask residents of Iraq or Afghanistan about that. The 21st century has seen no end to the invasion of nations.

---

This comment quite handily makes my point for me... The Iraqis were armed, lotta good it did them. If every American had 10 automatic weapons, you're still no match for your own government if they had the will to act against you (which is one of the reasons people blather on about the need for citizens to bear arms). My point was not that invasions don't happen, my point was that your handgun is not going to help prevent it.

quote:

---

And you've not answered my question. The AR-15 has the qualities that it does because it's meant to be a versatile, reliable, accurate firearm. Why should a civilian weapon be unreliable and inaccurate?

---

I wish people wouldn't do this. I DID answer your question, the above question is a rephrased version of your original question which leaves out the military comparison. So now I'll answer version 2.0 of your question...Because a civilian, almost by definition, has no need for a versatile, reliable, accurate firearm in a civilised 21st century society.Now, please don't do that to me anymore don't move the goalposts AFTER I've DIRECTLY answered your question.Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Where does this end, though? I'm not OK with my fellow citizens owning a dozen cars, but what's the legal principle by which I can stop them?

---

Cars have a legitimate use, but yes, they can be misused.Please explain to me the "legitimate use" of an arsenal of semi-automatic weapons.

quote:

---

And you seem to misunderstand the concept of "freedom." It's only in extreme circumstances that we curtail the freedoms of everyone simply because a very small number of people use those freedoms to cause harm.

---

Funny that America is the only nation that blathers on about guns in this manner. Citizens of the Netherlands, Iceland, Switzerland, these people feel a very strong sense of freedom in their societies without a doubt, and somehow they don't view the exclusion of deadly weaponry from their daily lives as some sort of denial of freedom. What about my daughter's freedom to go to school without worrying about getting slaughtered?

quote:

---

A single mass shooting doesn't rise to that level of justification.

---

A single one? perhaps not. Try this though...A Guide to Mass Shootings in America – Mother JonesSo... Crash... we're not going to agree. And I respect your view. Nonetheless, it is STILL beyond me why compact portable death machines are ubiquitous in America, and apparently that's just... OKAY lol.Edited by Briterican, : typo

quote:

---

You haven't explained why owning a single AR-15 means that one has an "arsenal"..."

​

You haven't explained why owning a single AR-15 means that one has an "arsenal", or why its accuracy makes it an unusually dangerous weapon
  —crashfrog

---

No... and there's a good reason I didn't explain these things... because you didn't ask. Now that you have, I will. Dude lol... PLEASE stop doing that. Stop imagining what I said and actually read what I said, and stop expecting me to anticipate your next question.I never said owning a single AR15 constituted an arsenal. But there's nothing stopping you from owning 12, or 24, or 48, and at some point that's an arsenal. This CO shooter... HAD AN ARSENAL.I absolutely never said an AR15's accuracy made it an unusually dangerous weapon. Those words never escaped my keyboard. What I said was that I see no logical justification for the proliferation of such weapons in a civilised society.The amount of guns and ammo in America FAR exceeds any possible hunting you might use them for. Many of you that thump your chests on this topic don't even hunt lol, but you still own a gun... "because it's my god-given right". And it sits in a closet, and serves a purpose of "good" (self-defence) maybe 10% of the time. The rest of the time, it kills another human being, either by mistake, or on purpose.The more I get into these conversations, the more I see the alpha male attitude come through.You asked about legal principle... what is the legal principle that prevents you from erecting a missile battery in your garden, and why shouldn't that same principle apply to other similarly deadly weaponry? Yes... I know... the 2nd amendment. If the founding forefathers could see the weaponry you have over there now, in ubiquitous fashion, I have no doubt they'd wish they'd have thought that one through a little more.

quote:

---

So, should trucks now be made illegal? After all, armies sometimes use trucks to move arms and armor. Why should civilians have access to this military hauling capability? Surely there's no legitimate civilian purpose to being able to move that much stuff at once. Come on, people! You have to make more trips when you move because 12 people are dead!
  —crashfrog

---

This is possibly the most inane argument/analogy I have seen in months. Thanks for the giggle crash Of course there are loads of civilian purposes for hauling cargo, it is in fact crucial to our modern societies to do so. This truck crashed, albeit probably through negligence. We all accept the risk we take when we get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle.Unfortunately, something nearing half of Americans are not happy with having to accept the presence of firearms throughout their society. They take the risk driving, because they need to get from point A to point B. Most people aren't hunters, therefore they do not see the need for ubiquitous firearms (which apart from murder have one use, hunting).Now, how does this truck accident have anything to do with firearms again?

quote:

---

The Second Amendment exists, Brit. It's real and legally binding. And like it or not, it really does pose an obstacle to anyone who would like to disarm the American public. If you'd like to live in a country where firearms ownership is not so common, then move to one.
  —crashfrog

---

LOL... already did it Crash... I'm a Texan transplanted in the UK... and I join them in shaking my head in confusion at this all too common attitude you present. It beggars belief.

quote:

---

The question isn't why Americans are so uniquely prone to gun violence; the question is why Americans are so uniquely prone to all forms of violence. The US doesn't just have more shootings than other countries; it has more stabbings and beatings, too.
  —Crashfrog

---

... probably the only thing you've said yet that I agree with.

quote:

---

And the more I see your "anti-gun" side is really just a paroxysm of inchoate fear and rage. You don't know anything about what you're talking about, and you've simply chosen to assume that any time a person uses a gun to commit murder, that the government has failed.
  —Crashfrog

---

Yeah, that's it. I'm just ill-informed. I'm just weak and timid and haven't made up my mind yet. That's it. That's why I apparently, at least by your account, have "chosen to assume that any time a person uses a gun to commit murder, that the government has failed."We were going okay up to this point, I respect your opinions, and I do NOT suggest any ban on your right to bear arms. I have stated my opinions, which I think may hold a little more weight than you're giving me credit for, given that I have lived for over a decade in BOTH societies (USA/UK - with their almost diametrically opposed attitude towards firearms), but you have me all figured out.Bedtime for me now, thanks for the chat. In future could you try not to put so many words into my mouth please? My jaw is sore.

quote:

---

For instance you've called for "stronger gun laws" but what is that supposed to mean, and how would a stronger law have stopped James Holmes

---

Again with this putting words into my mouth business. Please quote the portion of my comments above that called for "stronger gun laws". When you find yourself unable to do this, please remember that... and try in future not to assign me with statements that I didn't make.

I don't have a solution for you and never claimed to. I never suggested "stronger gun laws". I HAVE suggested that the 2nd amendment is being interpreted in a broader way than I personally think it was meant. But that is my personal opinion. We are, after all, in the Coffee House.I actually don't think stronger laws would help much at this point, unless they were accompanied by some robust and practicable method of reducing the number of firearms available. But I don't see that happening either.Either way, I will sadly predict that there will be another mass shooting in America before there's one in Britain, it's just simple maths really.