Here
and
Now

opinions

Colorado shooting unlikely to spur changes in gun laws

10 Comments
By John Whitesides and David Ingram

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2012.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

10 Comments
Login to comment

Passing more laws won't help, as illustrated by the examples in the article. Although Colorado has pretty lax gun laws (you don't need a permit to carry, only one to carry concealed) the theater where this tragedy occurred has a zero gun tolerance. So there already was a "law" so to speak, in place that made this a gun free zone. The killer just figured out a way around it.

It would appear that in many of these cases more laws aren't the answer, but how to adequately enforce the existing laws. If theaters staff private security to guard the exits, that would increase the price of tickets. Would customers be prepared to pay an extra dollar per movie ticket to prevent against the very slim chance that this would happen again?

Would citizens be happy to pay more taxes to hire more police to guard every public place to protect against the very rare event of somebody going off with a gun?

I think that in such a big country with so many people, and so many opportunities for criminals to take advantage of situations, there's just no way to adequately protect EVERYBODY all the time.

Stuff like this is just bound to happen, regardless of how many laws you put on the books.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

In the 22nd century Americans will doubtlessly be blasting away at each other with scrooch guns and death ray lasers, thanks to their wonderful Second Amendment.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

I see the Norway argument used many times - and it's true that someone determined enough will get around laws. But if you look at the big picture, gun violence in Norway is still way below that in the US.

This proves beyond a doubt that stricter gun laws save lives.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

If this maniac couldn't get a gun he would have (and ,in fact,Did!)set explosives of some type. The scale of these assualt weapons are for war & in the least the general public should not have them. I am Pro 2nd amendment and believe people should have protection in their homes but who needs a 50cal. Machine gun ?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

As I wrote in a related post, had some of the moviegoers been armed, the shooter could have been neutralized quickly instead of their literally having been sitting ducks.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

I am certainly not happy about the availability of guns in America. I think there should be stricter limits. But, this will never happen. So, instead there should be more strict controls about the TYPES of guns, gun attachments (such as increasing clip capacity), ammunition, and other items that the normal citizen (or abnormal) should not be able to get their hands on.

Additionally, I believe there ARE ways available today that can make guns more secure and less likely to be stolen and USED by criminals. However, gun thefts and violence due to guns increase gun sales has been documented after many major shooting sprees. It is, therefore, bad for gun and ammo manufactures to put newer or higher technology into guns, as it increases cost and reduces their bottom line in sales. Gun manufactures will also pour a lot of money into campaigns and lobbyists to prevent any kind of legislation that they do not like...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is a strong possibility that if one or more of the patrons at that theater had been armed we would have had a more deadly result. Numerous people shooting in the dark, the situation exacerbated by the toxic gas that was apparently used. That is not the answer. I agree with Mr. Harte. We have the right to defend ourselves, but we do not need thousands of rounds of ammunition and assault weapons. The founding fathers certainly could not have imagined the extent to which the 2nd amendent has been taken. This is an extremely complicated issue that merits not only serious debate, but decisive action after that debate.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

had some of the moviegoers been armed

There would have been a bunch of panicking people shooting in the dark resulting in even more death/injury.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

As I wrote in a related post, had some of the moviegoers been armed, the shooter could have been neutralized quickly instead of their literally having been sitting ducks.

A darkened theater jam-packed with people, with gas canisters going off and paranoia and panic running high. If you armed even a fraction of those people, the result would have been a lot of crossfire and I guarantee a lot more deaths. And once the police arrived, they wouldn't know who the actual assailant was.

And given the armor Holmes was wearing, it wouldn't have stopped him anyway.

In what reality is that an acceptable alternative? I just love how everyone thinks they're The Man With No Name in these situations.

America's increased fetishization with guns has reached a fever-pitch and the NRA won't rest until they turn America into the kind of wild west you see in the movies. It's one of many, many reasons why I don't ever want to go back to America. It's increasingly becoming a cesspool.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

It's one of many, many reasons why I don't ever want to go back to America. It's increasingly becoming a cesspool.

I'm increasingly feeling the same way. Today I thought for the first time "Maybe I should try to get Japanese citizenship."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites