US Cinema Shootings

[Quotidian]

News today of another shooting incident in a US cinema. Fortunately, it seems no audience members were killed in today's installment, although the assailant was shot dead. However it seems to be a developing pattern, in addition to the regular school shootings and shootings in public places and military establishments.

Now the question is, if there had to be some security measures introduced at cinemas, like bag checks or metal detectors - similar to what we go through at airport security - would this be an indicator of civil freedom?

The National Rifle Association asserts that free access to weapons is the mark of a free society. But if we do get to the point of having to go through security just to get into cinemas - or face the risk, however slight, of being shot dead in our cinema seats - is this 'the mark of a free society'? Is this what 'civil freedom' or 'civil liberty' looks like?

[LuckyR]

News today of another shooting incident in a US cinema. Fortunately, it seems no audience members were killed in today's installment, although the assailant was shot dead. However it seems to be a developing pattern, in addition to the regular school shootings and shootings in public places and military establishments.

Now the question is, if there had to be some security measures introduced at cinemas, like bag checks or metal detectors - similar to what we go through at airport security - would this be an indicator of civil freedom?

The National Rifle Association asserts that free access to weapons is the mark of a free society. But if we do get to the point of having to go through security just to get into cinemas - or face the risk, however slight, of being shot dead in our cinema seats - is this 'the mark of a free society'? Is this what 'civil freedom' or 'civil liberty' looks like?

Sure it is, but not the freedom you/they think.

[Sy Borg]

Some years ago after a shooting that claimed the lives of numerous school children I wrote a post in a forum about the issue pleading for sanity with guns, and pointing out that guns claim many more US lives than terrorism. I thought the atrocity was extreme enough to make a difference. I was then furiously attacked and impugned by gun nuts for a year afterwards until I left the forum.

All the world can do is watch Americans self destruct and hand world leadership to China on a platter. It's typical hubristic behaviour for a waning empire.

[Robert66]

Here is a quote from Universal Alien:

'If we took the Second Amendment literally and allowed the the right of the people to bear arms, this mass murder scenario would end. If enough of the 'well armed militia' was in fact armed the public would no longer be subjected to mass murderers; they could be stopped before their carnage was complete. To quote a somewhat controversial politician of years past" "A well armed society is a polite society" -G. Gordon Liddy'

What do people think? At the moment US citizens possess 0.88 guns per capita. Would the situation improve with more gun ownership? After all, if EVERYONE was armed, then the bag checks would be unnecessary, wouldn't they?

[Wilson]

Right. A suicidal man with an automatic weapon wouldn't be able to kill more than almost every person in a movie theater before someone shot him dead, or he killed himself.

Ridiculous.

Most people wouldn't carry weapons even if it was legal. And someone who opens fire in a room with five or ten persons would be able to kill several or all before anyone who happened to have a gun could get it out.

It's true that a clear thinking person who is determined to get away with it might be reluctant to open fire in certain situations. But no clear thinking person would expect to get away with a mass shooting, anyway. I guess it might deter a few people from such an act. But very few. And put more guns in the hands of more people and the next time they get raging angry, somebody may die instead of being punched in the face. Countries with strict gun laws have few gun deaths. Just a fact.

[Sy Borg]

What do people think? At the moment US citizens possess 0.88 guns per capita. Would the situation improve with more gun ownership? After all, if EVERYONE was armed, then the bag checks would be unnecessary, wouldn't they?

It depends on how one feels about bullet holes in a pressurised vehicle containing a couple of hundred people, that is travelling at 800 kph at an altitude of 10,000 metres where there's minimal oxygen in the atmosphere (enough for a minute or two) and an ambient temperature of around -44°C.

[LuckyR]

Well, the US keeps on buying guns and the US murder rate keeps... dropping substantially. The US murder rate has dropped by more that half from 1992 to 2013.

[Sy Borg]

The US's murder rate and record of firearm massacres is the envy of the world!

-- Updated 09 Sep 2015, 20:31 to add the following --

The US's murder rate and record of firearm massacres is the envy of the world!

[Wilson]

Well, the US keeps on buying guns and the US murder rate keeps... dropping substantially. The US murder rate has dropped by more that half from 1992 to 2013.

Are you pretty happy, then, with the murder rate in the US? It may have fallen, but we can still hold our heads up high in being #1 in the world, or close to it.

I have no idea if the US is buying fewer or more guns. The important thing is that everybody who wants one can get it.

Two (maybe three) factors, in my opinion, are responsible for the fall in crime rates, including murder.

One is that violent criminals and criminals in general are been imprisoned longer. Three strike laws put violent offenders away for a very long time, and they come out of prison older and past their most violent years.

The other is that the population is getting older, and crime is a young man's speciality.

Then there is the controversial idea in the book Freakonomics that the fall in crime rates in the 1990's was partly due to the fact that Roe v Wade made abortion legal in the US in 1973 and there were fewer unwanted babies who reached prime crime-committing years when the rates began to plummet. http://freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abor ... u-believe/

[Logic_ill]

If surveillance is used around the clock with every citizen, as it is done with me, the rates will drop down dramatically. Of course, it is most likely the vulnerable citizen who will be accused.

[LuckyR]

Well, the US keeps on buying guns and the US murder rate keeps... dropping substantially. The US murder rate has dropped by more that half from 1992 to 2013.

Are you pretty happy, then, with the murder rate in the US? It may have fallen, but we can still hold our heads up high in being #1 in the world, or close to it.

I have no idea if the US is buying fewer or more guns. The important thing is that everybody who wants one can get it.

Two (maybe three) factors, in my opinion, are responsible for the fall in crime rates, including murder.

One is that violent criminals and criminals in general are been imprisoned longer. Three strike laws put violent offenders away for a very long time, and they come out of prison older and past their most violent years.

The other is that the population is getting older, and crime is a young man's speciality.

Then there is the controversial idea in the book Freakonomics that the fall in crime rates in the 1990's was partly due to the fact that Roe v Wade made abortion legal in the US in 1973 and there were fewer unwanted babies who reached prime crime-committing years when the rates began to plummet. http://freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abor ... u-believe/

Seriously? The US is actually 111st in the world (out of 218 so clearly smack dab in the middle) in murder rate, between Niger and Latvia.

This is what happens when folks get their "experience" from news headlines and TMZ.

I will say that I seem to have given the impression in my previous post that I believe that the REASON for the impressive drop in murder rate in the US is because of high gun ownership. That is false, I meant that the two are only extremely superficially related, if related at all.

-- Updated September 11th, 2015, 1:22 pm to add the following --

The US's murder rate and record of firearm massacres is the envy of the world!

-- Updated 09 Sep 2015, 20:31 to add the following --

The US's murder rate and record of firearm massacres is the envy of the world!

Well, the US is in the bottom half of countries in murder rate, so more countries should be envious than gloating...

[Sy Borg]

Yes, the US murder rate looks good compared with Honduras, Colombia, Somalia, Rwanda and El Salvador.

I do not consider this any kind of achievement for a wealthy western nation, but a disappointment that gun advocates would rely on statements that distort the truth to give the illusion of "winning" an argument.

The US murder rate is higher than that of most western nations, and radically higher than nations with similar wealth and culture: businessinsider.com.au/us-vs-western-ho ... es-2014-11

[Spiral Out]

Greta sounds more and more like a radicalized anti-American zealot with every post. I'm quickly losing respect for her opinions.

Once again, it's all just firearm scapegoating, taking the responsibility of the act off the person and placing it on an inanimate object.

If forced to choose between the absolute freedom of "free zones" or the absolute security of "safe zones", I would bet a year's wages that the vast majority of people would choose to live in "free zones".

While "free zones" could provide genuine freedom, "safe zones" could never provide genuine security.

There's a very good reason behind the fact that people aren't fleeing the US en masse.

Now the question is, if there had to be some security measures introduced at cinemas, like bag checks or metal detectors - similar to what we go through at airport security - would this be an indicator of civil freedom?

Not surprisingly, the question is indicative of the questioner's lack of understanding as to the fundamental basis of freedom.

Security measures at cinemas would have absolutely nothing to do with civil freedoms of the patrons and everything to do with the financial protections of the corporation. Otherwise, they'd just shutter the cinemas.

[Sy Borg]

Greta sounds more and more like a radicalized anti-American zealot with every post. I'm quickly losing respect for her opinions.

I see. So posting data and observing the results is "radicalisation". I actually don't need respect from gun advocates any more than I need the respect of infants or any other naive people. After your manipulative ad hominem above, I'm very happy not have your respect.

The obtuseness and denial of American gun lobbyists is famous worldwide (and within the nation itself). Also famous is the influence and corruption of the arms industry that manipulates the American public's opinions, effectively getting ordinary people to argue against their own interests on behalf of the industry. Go ahead, score as many own goals as you like on behalf of your corporate masters and manipulators. You choice.

As I said before, I was driven from another forum in the past after Googling NRA zealots flooded the site and took over the entire site's agenda. Within weeks every thread referred to guns, and at least half directly addressed the topic. My crime? Observing the problem with US gun laws after one of many a school gun massacres.

If this debate continues I can see the possibility of attracting of gun zealots to the forum so I will throw no further fuel on this fire. I also recommend that this thread be locked if new "members" with no interest in philosophy come here in numbers to argue the arms companies' case.

[Spiral Out]

Not surprising that you've opportunistically utilized one specific statement to smokescreen the points I've made.

Don't run away from truth Greta. Simply because your position cannot be maintained without feebly trying to equate advocates of freedom with infants. And you speak of manipulative ad homs? Please.

Your arguments are so influenced by the emotional manipulation of mass media and so heavily invested in the emotional manipulation of others that you have failed to recognize or address my arguments and have focused only on your misguided interpretation of my words as being supportive of corporate lobbyist interests. Reactionary and shameful.

You appear to have been "successfully advertised to" by those whom you have chosen to associate your emotional frailties with. Jab and run away.

Your real crime? Blaming US firearms laws for the behaviors of the criminally insane, who either obtain their firearms illegally, or through legal channels but only before they can be recognized as criminally insane.

I'll have to break your "security bubble", Greta, and educate you to the fact that security is an cozy illusion that your government has lulled you into, and you're blindly buying into the hysteria of the media outlets that thrive on the ratings gained by the gasping ignoramuses who feed on their ********.

Do you live in the US? No? Then you cannot speak to the conditions here in the US being thousands of miles removed. It's obvious that being anti-American is fashionable these days, but hey, if you're a follower, then so be it.

Now, about addressing my arguments...