On-Topic Roger Ebert's Thoughts on the Aurora Shootings

[MassRuss]

A thoroughly intelligent column. Thoughtful & insightful. We really do need some kind of gun control, especially for "military" type weapons.

Roger Ebert on the Aurora shooting: "We've Seen this Movie Before" - Democratic Underground

 

[hungkee]

Its nice that his mother back home recognized his true nature.

But its too bad that those he's been dealing with in Aurora, CO didn't.

It is "curious", for instance, that the well-paid, well-educated, well-connected and "bright" U. of Colorado professors, etc who worked with him this past year and who assessed him to be perhaps the most brilliant student they've ever had in the neurosciences didn't detect his true nature.

I guess they missed the true nature or essence of the guy as they dealt with things of the brain.

But then, maybe not. Maybe they did notice something. But unlike his mother, U. of Colorado officials decided to remain silent - for their own reasons??

 

[sfpapillon]

Que voiceover: In a world where video games are reality and laws are ignored (pause for effect).
Where running from the police is applauded, bad triumphs over good and where right is wrong (pause for effect).
Where the anti-hero is the hero and guns are easy (pause for effect).
Where thugs are celebrated and lies become the political norm. (pause for effect).
Where life is a commodity to be bought and sold and lost life is considered collateral damage, (pause for effect).
Where water, air and food are poisoned and corporations are the equal to you (pause for effect).
Where babies are not in bed at midnight and sports became the holy grail (pause for effect).
This summer, starring you!

 

[Kulindahr]

A thoroughly intelligent column. Thoughtful & insightful. We really do need some kind of gun control, especially for "military" type weapons.

Roger Ebert on the Aurora shooting: "We've Seen this Movie Before" - Democratic Underground

Ebert missed one big thing: there's not a gun control law in the world that will stop mass killings. Here's an article with more sense to it:

Gun control or carry permits won't stop mass murder - CNN.com

 

[hungkee]

Ebert missed one big thing: there's not a gun control law in the world that will stop mass killings. Here's an article with more sense to it:

Gun control or carry permits won't stop mass murder - CNN.com

the thing that those who argue for no gun laws is that omit the element of matching an individual to his weapons and to the number of weapons he may own.

in that sense, it would be something like pharmacies tracking which drugs and how many drugs someone may be legally prescribed VERSUS what happens now (even with prescription drugs) where someone can fill orders everywhere and with numerous doctors.

Gun control of a reasonable, responsible, genuine sort would not allow a citizen to own numerous assault weapons and thousands and thousands of rounds of ammo...without even much asking why...let alone sending the stuff sight unseen via an Internet purchase.

 

[White Eagle]

Ebert missed one big thing: there's not a gun control law in the world that will stop mass killings. Here's an article with more sense to it:

Gun control or carry permits won't stop mass murder - CNN.com

(The number of mass murders in the U.S. has remained fairly steady, averaging about two dozen cases a year since the mid-1970s.)

That is a sentence from your link. Is this true? Averaging about 2 dozen a year?

Mass killers are determined, deliberate and dead-set on murder. They plan methodically to execute their victims, finding the means no matter what laws or other impediments the state attempts to place in their way. To them, the will to kill cannot be denied.

And this says a lot. There are not enough gun laws that could be made to stop such things. It is truly up to the people, UoC, his mother, his neighbors etc etc to pay attention to what is happening.

 

[CowboyBob]

Ebert missed one big thing: there's not a gun control law in the world that will stop mass killings.

Probably not, but it may make them less frequent. Wearing a seat belt won't stop traffic fatalities, but it will prevent many of them.

 

[Kulindahr]

Probably not, but it may make them less frequent. Wearing a seat belt won't stop traffic fatalities, but it will prevent many of them.

Maybe. But unlike drownings, which have gone down with education, the rate of mass shootings doesn't seem to change no matter what laws are passed or what education is tried. Of course, they haven't tried the sort of education I'd like, which would show kids in school what guns actually do to people -- the cantaloupe with a human face is one of my favorites.

Teach and train everyone starting in grade one.

 

[Stardreamer]

Probably not, but it may make them less frequent. Wearing a seat belt won't stop traffic fatalities, but it will prevent many of them.

You are assuming that the person subject to the seatbelt law does not want to die. The seat belt law will make no difference in the case of a person who wants to die in a car crash which is the point being made.

 

[hungkee]

Maybe. But unlike drownings, which have gone down with education, the rate of mass shootings doesn't seem to change no matter what laws are passed or what education is tried. Of course, they haven't tried the sort of education I'd like, which would show kids in school what guns actually do to people -- the cantaloupe with a human face is one of my favorites.

Teach and train everyone starting in grade one.

But he bought the stuff. He didn't build the stuff. He bought the weapons and an army-load of ammo like anyone can buy a pair of shoes in the USA.

Laws don't need to aid & abet and make super-simple the ability of a mad gunman or murderer to bring his plans to fruition, now do they? And it is pro gun laws (not the lack of them) which enabled this guy to fulfill his plot with relative ease.

 

[Kulindahr]

You are assuming that the person subject to the seatbelt law does not want to die. The seat belt law will make no difference in the case of a person who wants to die in a car crash which is the point being made.

Good insight. The problem is one Robert Heinlein envisioned back in the 50s, that a dense enough society is going to produce crazies who can't be stopped or deterred because they don't value their own lives. There are no preventives for this.

Except maybe requiring everyone to go naked indoors.

 

[Kulindahr]

But he bought the stuff. He didn't build the stuff. He bought the weapons and an army-load of ammo like anyone can buy a pair of shoes in the USA.

Laws don't need to aid & abet and make super-simple the ability of a mad gunman or murderer to bring his plans to fruition, now do they? And it is pro gun laws (not the lack of them) which enabled this guy to fulfill his plot with relative ease.

That has nothing to do with my post that you quoted.

Laws are supposed to aid and abet the exercise of lawful citizens' rights. That's as true of the right of self defense as of free speech. If that happens to empower idiots, that's the price of a free society.

Instead of whining, "Protect us! Protect us!" like a herd of sheep, free people would be electing leaders who would actually go after the bad guys, instead of penalizing the good guys. The NRA does that vigorously -- one of the things that make it the foremost firearms safety organization in the world.

 

[hungkee]

That has nothing to do with my post that you quoted.

Laws are supposed to aid and abet the exercise of lawful citizens' rights. That's as true of the right of self defense as of free speech. If that happens to empower idiots, that's the price of a free society.

Instead of whining, "Protect us! Protect us!" like a herd of sheep, free people would be electing leaders who would actually go after the bad guys, instead of penalizing the good guys. The NRA does that vigorously -- one of the things that make it the foremost firearms safety organization in the world.

I don't agree with you on that point. Nowhere is it stated that it within one's right to arm oneself like a one-man militia. The concept is that the state shall have the right to form & keep a militia. Not an individual.

But besides that little observation, the notion that we're all on our own when it comes to the state making it easy for crazies to empower themselves would be at odds with any sense of actual LAW & ORDER.

And we are a nation build upon laws. Laws are in place not only to defend and enable the crazies though.

They are also there to govern and protect the citizenry.

What you imply is that everyone is on one's own in a no-Man's land or a wild west of lawlessness.

But that isn't the case.

Whereas you might argue that freedom means everyone takes their risks in being killed, others might argue that the state ought to do all it can to minimize such risks or threats to its people.

Maybe its all "politics" and some people are on one side of the aisle about social accountability while others on the opposing side of that same aisle. But I don't agree that freedom and rights are all only to ensure that the craziest behaviors are protected (and the rest of us ought to just accept such or take matters into our own hands as we see fit).

No one would need laws or a nation or even much of a community if one wanted to live that way - like a mountain man governed by nothing but the call of the wild or whatnot.

We are suppose to be a civilized society - maybe even a civilization! :O)

As such we ought to reach for our highest potentials and not simply accept or encourage the ways of the barbarian and caveman within.

 

[Telstra]

So, i'm curious.
Since guns are allowed, can people bring guns when they do shopping ... etc ?

 

[Stardreamer]

What you imply is that everyone is on one's own in a no-Man's land or a wild west of lawlessness.

The 'Wild West' was not lawless, in fact some of the more famous 'shoot-outs' were the result of law enforcement. Studies of per capita crime in the period and now show you were commonly safer and less likely to be shot in the 'Wild West' than you are today in most urban cities. As far as gun crime goes, the Wild West was not all that wild at all.

 

[Stardreamer]

So, i'm curious.
Since guns are allowed, can people bring guns when they do shopping ... etc ?

Depends on the jurisdiction and the store ownership. Many US counties and cities actually allow open carry but most folks find carrying a gun on your hip tends to draw unwanted attention. Stores have the right to ask that you do not bring weapons inside their store, in concealed carry states you have to comply with a sign that prohibits guns in the establishment.

 

[Kulindahr]

I don't agree with you on that point. Nowhere is it stated that it within one's right to arm oneself like a one-man militia. The concept is that the state shall have the right to form & keep a militia. Not an individual.

Well, the people who wrote the amendment, their political opponents, and the Supreme Court all disagree with you. That's a lie that was concocted in the twentieth century by authoritarians who want to control the population.

What you imply is that everyone is on one's own in a no-Man's land or a wild west of lawlessness.

That's only in your imagination. As has been pointed out, the "Wild West" had less gun violence per capita than the urban East, while having far more guns per capita.

Whereas you might argue that freedom means everyone takes their risks in being killed, others might argue that the state ought to do all it can to minimize such risks or threats to its people.

Maybe its all "politics" and some people are on one side of the aisle about social accountability while others on the opposing side of that same aisle. But I don't agree that freedom and rights are all only to ensure that the craziest behaviors are protected (and the rest of us ought to just accept such or take matters into our own hands as we see fit).

This is just making stuff up -- "the craziest behaviors" are NOT "protected".

We are suppose to be a civilized society - maybe even a civilization! :O)

As such we ought to reach for our highest potentials and not simply accept or encourage the ways of the barbarian and caveman within.

A civilized society is one where the value of the individual and individual sovereignty are respected. A man who is not allowed to go armed has no dignity; the state has decreed that his life is fair game to any criminal who wishes to take it. It's no surprise that mass shootings take place in locations where it's highly unlikely that people are armed: that way, the barbarian is confident he'll encounter only sheep, not free, civilized people.

Our "highest potentials" will not be reached by restricting liberty. A country which has reached its highest potentials will be one where no police are needed, because the well-armed citizenry keep crime negligible. Keeping the citizens unarmed is what encourages the barbarian, because it means the state has supplied him with victims.

 

[Kulindahr]

So, i'm curious.
Since guns are allowed, can people bring guns when they do shopping ... etc ?

Where the law is respected -- yes. Shopping, the beach, out bicycling, whatever; the amendment defends the right to keep and bear arms, and doesn't put any limit on where they may be taken.

 

[Kulindahr]

The 'Wild West' was not lawless, in fact some of the more famous 'shoot-outs' were the result of law enforcement. Studies of per capita crime in the period and now show you were commonly safer and less likely to be shot in the 'Wild West' than you are today in most urban cities. As far as gun crime goes, the Wild West was not all that wild at all.

Right. It illustrates that an armed society is a polite society.

Of course the problem is that we have largely forgotten that we have an obligation to treat others with respect (something lawyers delight in and encourage), so switching immediately back to a fully armed society would entail a period of craziness. La Pierre and friends want to get there fast, regardless of the cost; prudence says take things more slowly.

 

[Kulindahr]

Depends on the jurisdiction and the store ownership. Many US counties and cities actually allow open carry but most folks find carrying a gun on your hip tends to draw unwanted attention. Stores have the right to ask that you do not bring weapons inside their store, in concealed carry states you have to comply with a sign that prohibits guns in the establishment.

Both those are being fought in the courts. Laws prohibiting open carry are being knocked over, and prohibitions by businesses are being argued.

A business that posts "no guns" is just giving an invitation to barbarians, by announcing, "We have a supply of victims who you can slaughter at will".