Dispute over Reserved Seats Leads to Shooting at NM Cinema

[Dave Macaulay]

"there are other countries with high weapon proliferation that see a lower amount of mass-shootings per capita than the U.S."

Where?

[Marcel Birgelen]

"there are other countries with high weapon proliferation that see a lower amount of mass-shootings per capita than the U.S."

Where?

Countries like Canada, Switzerland, Austria, Norway and Finland come to mind. Yeah, I know that the U.S. is pretty lonely at the top with about 125 guns per 100 people that live there, but heck, you can't be the greatest country in the world without at least a few records with your name on it, can you?

[Dave Macaulay]

These all have quite restrictive gun regulations. No comparison.

[Marcel Birgelen]

It depends upon what you consider restrictive gun regulations. Switzerland has some of the most lenient gun control laws in the world, comparable to many U.S. states. It's not too difficult to get a permit to own guns in Germany either, getting a permit to carry one is a different story though. Both countries have far more guns per capita than e.g. the Netherlands, but still far less than the U.S. Like indicated, especially in Switzerland, it's not really hard to get a gun if you want one. Being one of the richest countries in the world, it's also not a financial issue. So, whatever persuades Americans to buy about as many guns as mobile phones, is working splenditly. If Apple is looking for a market to expand to, they really should take a look at guns.

[Bobby Henderson]

Gun ownership is very high in Canada. It's not difficult at all for Canadian citizens to legally buy guns. The big difference is their culture. Canadians, on average, are much nicer, more polite people than Americans. Us Americans tend to be self-obsessed ASSHOLES. We're a bunch of fucking jerks. And that's the "conservative" part of me saying take some personal responsibility over your behavior.

In Switzerland (as well as other countries) it's mandatory to serve in the military or civil service when reaching adulthood. Every Swiss citizen is REQUIRED to take courses on firearms use as part of that service. It's not difficult for citizens to acquire various kinds of handguns and rifles there, but the government does keep lots of records and has lots of rules about gun ownership. It's not the "anything goes" bullshit we have here in much of the US.

[Leo Enticknap]

Well, let's say those things would become mandatory... then you already know what the story is: All government buildings will get them, you'll pay them and what it costs to operate those, via your taxes, somehow.

Many if not most federal government buildings here already have them: they started to be installed after the Timothy McVeigh bombing (not that they would have prevented it), and the process accelerated after 9/11. When I was going through immigration and naturalization formalities, entering the government buildings was pretty much the same process as going through security at an airport, including the ban on taking bottled liquids through. The county courthouse in which I did jury duty last year had x-ray security checkpoints through which everyone had to pass, too.

What the US really needs is some therapy.

Yet when a certain politician with orange-dyed hair who shall remain nameless characterized psychotherapy as "an army of quacks making six-figure paychecks doing all this Woody Allen bullshit, and your insurance going sky high to pay for them" at one of his rallies, he got a standing ovation...

So, whatever persuades Americans to buy about as many guns as mobile phones, is working splenditly. If Apple is looking for a market to expand to, they really should take a look at guns.

They would likely put a an ID chip in each round, to force you to buy your ammunition from them as well. If you used aftermarket bullets, you would have to click through several nag messages reminding you that you have installed an aftermarket accessory and voided the warranty, during which time your adversary, armed with a non-Apple gun, would have blasted you to Kingdom Come.

[Bobby Henderson]

Yet when a certain politician with orange-dyed hair who shall remain nameless characterized psychotherapy as "an army of quacks making six-figure paychecks doing all this Woody Allen bullshit, and your insurance going sky high to pay for them" at one of his rallies, he got a standing ovation...

The orange-haired buffoon might have a point if his frame of reference is therapists operating in upper class NYC suburbs like Scarsdale. Not every therapist or counselor is raking in big bucks. Still, it is very true that insurance coverage in the US for any mental health issues is typically terrible or completely non-existent. That needs to change.

The orange-haired buffoon is an odd one to complain about psychotherapist "quacks," considering he has been making money and gaining fame by upping the nation's level of insanity. This is a guy who, for the past 20 or so years, has commanded the attention of TV cameras and interest of voters by throwing gasoline on the fire. The guy is a whore. My apologies to sex workers, but I can't think of a worse term for him and others like him for what they're doing to manipulate the general public.

I've heard defenses from media people and lawmakers such as, "we're giving the people what they want." If they want to continue heading in that direction they'll eventually be broadcasting public executions and hardcore porn. Civilizations doesn't work without some guard rails in place.

[Mike Blakesley]

That’s weird, I thought Film-tech was free of political name calling and so forth. Guess not.

[Bobby Henderson]

The orange-haired buffoon is more of a media personality than he is anything else. He's practically a living cartoon character. People like him who deliberately raise the level of anger in the general public are an ingredient in inspiring at least some of these shootings. The one that happened in that Albuquerque barely got any attention nationwide (only one person was shot and murdered). So that incident is disappearing in the rear-view mirror due to the rash of shootings we had over the weekend leading up to July 4th.

[William Kucharski]

I also think open carry is idiotic. I call it bullet-catcher carry. If you're in a convenience store that's about to be robbed and have a gun openly visible in a holster you're probably going to get shot first before the actual robbery happens. I've heard the argument the visible weapon would make a would-be robber think twice. In today's self-obsessed society where egos and pride know no limits, chances are good the robber will follow through with his plan. If I'm going to carry a gun I don't want anyone knowing I'm packing.

I disagree vehemently.

I can guarantee the shooter in this case was not open carrying legally, and was likely concealed carrying illegally.

I don't understand why allowing good people to carry guns will cause more death by bad people carrying guns.

[Bobby Henderson]

I can guarantee the shooter in this case was not open carrying legally, and was likely concealed carrying illegally.

Please point out where I claimed the shooter in the Albuquerque cinema was open carrying or even carrying a gun legally. My comments about open carry had zero to do with the shooter, but everything to do with my state's very laissez-faire stance on gun carry practices.

I don't understand why allowing good people to carry guns will cause more death by bad people carrying guns.

I also said nothing about preventing "good people" from being able to carry guns. I just think it's stupid for a state to no longer require permits, safety classes, or even any time at a gun range to legally conceal carry or open carry a firearm in public. IMHO, it is foolhardy for someone to own a gun and not be proficient in the use of it.

"Good people" are not perfect at all when it comes to understanding gun laws, particularly with how it involves legal use of deadly force. They assume they know the laws when they really don't. Safety classes help clear up dangerous misconceptions.

There's a somewhat famous incident that happened in Oklahoma City in 2009 where a pharmacist was sentenced to life in prison for killing one of two teens who tried to rob his store. The incident was caught on store surveillance video. There was an initial gun fight. One teen (who was not armed) was shot once in first exchange and collapsed on the floor of the store. The pharmacist chased the other robber (who was armed with a handgun) out of the store. The other robber got away. The pharmacist came back inside the store and saw the teen incapacitated on the floor. He went to his back office where re-loaded his gun. Then he returned up front and shot the teen 5 more times. The pharmacist probably thought finishing off the kid was perfectly legal (considering it was in view of the video camera). The pharmacist was convicted of first degree murder.

Naturally lots of people in Oklahoma were outraged this good, law-abiding pharmacist could get put away for killing "a piece of worthless scum." The peanut gallery didn't care about technicalities such as the teen not being armed, being unconscious and no longer posing a threat. They think the pharmacist should have been able to kill both robbers because they were robbers and he was mad as hell. Circumstances of the moment be damned. In 2018 the pharmacist was denied commutation and his life sentence was upheld.

[William Kucharski]

Naturally lots of people in Oklahoma were outraged this good, law-abiding pharmacist could get put away for killing "a piece of worthless scum." The peanut gallery didn't care about technicalities such as the teen not being armed, being unconscious and no longer posing a threat. They think the pharmacist should have been able to kill both robbers because they were robbers and he was mad as hell. Circumstances of the moment be damned. In 2018 the pharmacist was denied commutation and his life sentence was upheld.

That's sadly a failure of Oklahoma law to me, a good man put in jail for killing a thief.

IMHO, no state should require a permit to carry any more than you need to be licensed to exercise your right to free speech.

[Darin Steffl]

That's sadly a failure of Oklahoma law to me, a good man put in jail for killing a thief.

IMHO, no state should require a permit to carry any more than you need to be licensed to exercise your right to free speech.

No! He was put in jail for murdering a thief. There's a huge difference between killing and murdering. If he shot and killed someone who was attacking him with deadly force, he would be justified in shooting until the threat is gone. This means as soon as the thief is no longer a threat, such as lying on the ground with no weapon, the use of deadly force as self defense is no longer justified.

Anyone who thinks differently does not have the mental stability to be trusted with a firearm. Self defense with deadly force is the last resort option. You are supposed to retreat if possible and only try to neutralize the threat if your life is in danger. This means shooting to protect property is not legal in normal states such as Minnesota.

Being able to own and carry a firearm should be extremely hard but it's easier than many other adult things like renewing a driver's license, getting a loan, etc. I own multiple firearms and I want it to be more difficult in the future. No one should be able to buy/carry without a background check, psych eval, cooling off period, insurance policy, 8+ hours of education, X hours at a firing range to demonstrate safe handling, and red flag laws that can take your firearms if you demonstrate you're a threat to yourself or others. This means all the radical people making threats should not be able to own guns, plain and simple. Making threats means you're not mature enough to handle weapons.

This is literally common sense stuff to help combat more firearm deaths per capita than any other country.

[William Kucharski]

You may be happy with retreating; I'm a firm advocate of stand your ground laws, but I also abide by the laws of my locality.

Thankfully, I don't live in Minnesota.

You have your views, I have mine, but to question others' mental stability because they don't agree with you is patently ridiculous.

[Bobby Henderson]

That's sadly a failure of Oklahoma law to me, a good man put in jail for killing a thief.

The only failure was the pharmacist not obeying the damned law. He assumed he could act as an executioner because two guys attempted to rob his store. He assumed wrong.

"Good people" have all sorts of stupid beliefs on what they feel justifies the use of deadly force. Some people think they can use deadly force to protect property. If you pull into your driveway and see a thief running away with some of your valuables you can't legally shoot him. But a bunch of hot-heads in my state would certainly do so.

Everyone sort of knows police officers have to obey strict rules on when they can or cannot use their guns. Funny thing: the same rules on lethal force apply to us civilians. Someone has to be posing a direct physical threat to you or your family members before you can use a gun in self-defense. When a gun is used it can only be used to STOP a threat. No one has the explicit right to kill. If you shoot a home invader you shoot to stop. Him dying from the bullets should only be incidental.

That pharmacist in OKC stopped the threat to him in the initial gunfight. He should have just called 911 when he re-entered his store. Instead he shot the incapacitated teen 5 more times. That's intentional murder. Even though I'm a gun owner and support 2nd amendment rights, I would have voted to convict the guy if I had been on that jury.

IMHO, no state should require a permit to carry any more than you need to be licensed to exercise your right to free speech.

I can't kill myself or anyone else with just my words. I had to take a semester's worth of driver's ed classes in high school and pass a final written and road exam to qualify for a license. I'm far more dependent on using a motor vehicle in my daily life than I am any of the guns I own. Yet the big bad government forces me to do all sorts of stuff and pay money annually in order to drive.

Anyone who thinks differently does not have the mental stability to be trusted with a firearm. Self defense with deadly force is the last resort option. You are supposed to retreat if possible and only try to neutralize the threat if your life is in danger. This means shooting to protect property is not legal in normal states such as Minnesota.

There is no legal requirement for someone to retreat if facing a physical threat. Granted, anyone should use common sense and not place themselves in a dangerous situation in the first place. But some confrontations can happen right out of the blue. The laws may differ a bit state by state. Here in Oklahoma you can respond to any physical threat with lethal force if you are in legit fear for your life. If someone kicks in the front door of my house wanting to beat the living hell out of me, I don't have to run out my back door and I don't have to fight the guy either. Legally I can blast him, even if the intruder is armed with no more than his fists. People can and do get beaten to death with fists, kicks, etc.