Aurora, Colorado: 12 Dead in Shooting Rampage at Midnight Showing of The Dark Knight Rises Read mor

[Sheechiibii]

Thats because there was never a criminal-police arms race there.
This has happened in the US a few times which I have already cited.
Rolling over and handing your wallet to a theif may be acceptable in a lot of places, but in the US we believe a citizen has the right not to hand over his belongings and safety to a criminal. Your criminals dont arm themselves for two reasons:
The police dont carry, so there is no threat of harm in carrying out a crime. The bighest risk is being asked to surrender.
The citizens dont dare defend themselves for fear of legal consequences.
I dont know of any other country with communities which expressly encourage a "stand your ground" mentality.

As long as you are willing to roll over, a criminal will simply take what they like and walk away. The second you defend your right not to be robbed, you are in danger.

Thats the logic.

In the united states, we dont like giving up. We dont like rolling over and letting things happen to us. But even in places which arent as emphatic about self defense tjere is violent crime.
Everyone is familiar with the mexican cartel right?
Columbian geurillas?
Yakuza, palistinian pureists, japanese red army wannabes.

Speaking of which, a japanese terrorist group which claimed to be reminant of the japanese red army got their hands on rocket launchers and small arms and were captured outside yokosuka naval base, planning to fire the rocket at a navy ship.
Guns are illigal in japan.
They had a rocket and they were going to use it. Luckily some of the good ol boys saw a man carrying the rocket near an enterence to the base and subdued him, saving lives of not just US military, but JDSF members and japanese civilians.
Nothing bad had a chance to happen because the sailors who guarded the checkpoint were armed and did not allow the crazies to start firing. Nobody was hurt, not a single shot was fired.
There are police all over that city and at leadt one must have saw him walking around with an RPG, why didnt the japanese police stop him?
Because he was armed and they were not.

Now you know what to think.

The fact still remains and always will that with access to firearms the way America has this kinds of horrific massacres can and will happen. I mean, are you really saying you'd rather have the right to stand up to a mugger even if that means acts of violence like this can happen at any time? The the danger to peoples lives is so much more real, is it really that important to you? It's just paper and coins and plastic, it's worthless when you see what happened to those people innocently going to watch a movie, I'm sure they'd all have rather been mugged and stolen from by someone without a gun in a country without guns than to be shot at by a young American boy who has easy access to the weaponry the same as they did. There are psychos all over the place, you don't know who is and who isn't and walking around in a place where anyone can have a gun, I don't know how you can feel safe.

There are so many people who are mentally unstable and wouldn't care if you or your family were carrying a gun, who would shoot at as many people as possible before they were stopped. There is no safety in carrying a gun when everyone has them, it's far less safe than most people not having them. Like I said before, you don't hear about massacres on this scale here in Britain where there are no guns and that says it all to me really.

The phony cop was ex-military. Uncle Sam trained him in the use of firearms, provided him with permits and liscences. Hell, he even somehow obtained a very real looking sheriff's dept undercover badge. Truth is, if somebody has malicious intent, they're going to get their hands on whatever they need to hurt people. Why should I just trust that my govornment's police and military are nice people? Because some diplomat said they are? The U.S. Marine Corps denied me the opportunity to serve, and this guy went into the Army right after high school. Maybe the U.S. just has a higher percentage of whackos. I don't know. Why should ANYBODY be allowed to have a gun, by those standards? Why not crack down on weapons and firearm manufacturers? Make it illegal to produce anything with the purpose of killing. Especially hunting rifles. Why do we need to kill deer? We can just go to a store and buy meat if we want it. Why don't we still just fight wars with swords and bows? Better yet, outlaw those too. Fist fight to solve our problems... Or we can all just sit down and talk about our problems and figure something out peacefully. Heh... In an ideal world, maybe. This isn't the carebears. There's criminals and murderers out there and I for one will not give up my basic animal right to defend myself in any way that I can.

I get what you're saying. I really do. Do you realize that the mexican drug cartel simply hacks people's heads off with machetes or uses chainsaws? It's common to find decapitated heads on the sides of the road in many places where cartel activity is rampant. In third world countries there are roving machete gangs... People will simply light houses on fire to kill who they want. My point is that if it's not one method, its another.

Believe me, I'm the type of guy that can handle myself in a fist fight, but no matter how fast I can throw a combo or how many punches I can take it doesn't change the fact that a single bullet to the head can end my existence in a second. This is the world we live in. I don't see the problem with responsible citizens living in peace, being polite, good samaritans, and carrying their pistols just in case. That's what it's like in most of Kings Mountain, NC. It's actually pretty peaceful.

I guess it's different for me. I live in a country where in general most people live their entire lives without ever seeing a real gun, even most criminals don't have guns. Guns just aren't a part of this country. I understand that living in a country packed with guns you would get paranoid that someone would threaten you with a gun, because everyone has them. If nobody has them, then you wouldn't need a gun to protect yourself because any attacker wouldn't have a gun either. Do you see what I'm trying to say? As for not trusting the government, well I won't really go into that, but our country seems a lot safer in comparison and we don't have guns, if it works for Britain I can't understand why it wouldn't work for America? I think we live in pretty similar cultures.

12,996 murders in America in 2010 - 8,775 were caused by firearms.
619 murders in 2010 - 39 were caused by firearms.

I realise this isn't fair since the population of America is so much bigger, so in percentage this equates to:

.0042% of people murdered in America in 2010, 68% of those were from firearms.
.00097% of people murdered in the UK in 2010, 6% of those were from firearms.

Is it just a coincidence that we have so much less murders? Or is it just less convenient since we don't have the easy means to end someone’s life that guns in America provide?

[Pete]

Your perception of guns in America is absolutely absurd. You must think that every American has a whole freakin bunker, full of M16's and missiles. You're letting the perception that a few fringe lunatics, and that's what they are, are making the rest of the country look like Yosemite Sam.

The point that's being made, about the mugger, is that you shouldn't just have to surrender your possessions because someone looking tougher than you wants you to. That's not America. We don't just freely give up what we've earned. If you pull a knife on me and demand I give you what I busted my ass to earn, you should bet your ass that I would defend it. And if I had a gun, while you pulled a knife, you can bet that I would pull the gun out to defend myself. To give up and admit defeat so easily is just... French.

[che]

Once again, we would all love if the United States could identify with not everyone having a gun. What is your suggestion to the United States for closing the gap with other countries that have less guns and less deaths because of them? A number of posts in here have tried to explain to you why we can't just strip the US citizens of their guns, their protection. So far, we've basically said US citizens need guns to counter the fact that bad people can easily obtain guns. We're fighting guns with guns. That's the best solution I've come up with. You can make any law you want, but if (and it's not even a huge if in the United States) a guy is potentially going to come into my house wielding a gun, I'm going to protect my family with a gun. I can't think of a better solution. Pepper spray is too sloppy, and and affects everyone in the area. Bullets go through walls. It's hardly fair.

[Sheechiibii]

Once again, we would all love if the United States could identify with not everyone having a gun. What is your suggestion to the United States for closing the gap with other countries that have less guns and less deaths because of them? A number of posts in here have tried to explain to you why we can't just strip the US citizens of their guns, their protection. So far, we've basically said US citizens need guns to counter the fact that bad people can easily obtain guns. We're fighting guns with guns. That's the best solution I've come up with. You can make any law you want, but if (and it's not even a huge if in the United States) a guy is potentially going to come into my house wielding a gun, I'm going to protect my family with a gun. I can't think of a better solution. Pepper spray is too sloppy, and and affects everyone in the area. Bullets go through walls. It's hardly fair.

I understand that it wouldn't be easy to get guns out of the United states, but it's better to suggest that than to turn a blind eye to the damage having those weapons does. Nix had a good idea about how to get rid of all licensed guns, then the only problem would be to get rid of all unlicensed guns, which is impossible but can be cut down severely through people reporting or just being caught with guns, rules going out about fines if caught owning a gun or some other punishment. It's not like nobody in the UK has guns, some do, but because there's so few in comparison it hardly makes any odds and they're not the kind of people who go around robbing your average citizen either.

What I have a problem with here is that many of the post here seem to suggest that even if it were possible to get rid of the majority of guns, from both bad and good people, that they still wouldn't want to. Because of government, because of someone with a knife trying to steal their money, excuses why they would still want their gun even if they were only defending against a knife for some money. To me it just seems silly when so many people get murdered over it, don't people understand that someone important to them could get killed or severely injured from a gun and they'd rather run that risk as opposed to not having a gun to put in a muggers face for the sake of money.

Your perception of guns in America is absolutely absurd. You must think that every American has a whole freakin bunker, full of M16's and missiles. You're letting the perception that a few fringe lunatics, and that's what they are, are making the rest of the country look like Yosemite Sam.

The point that's being made, about the mugger, is that you shouldn't just have to surrender your possessions because someone looking tougher than you wants you to. That's not America. We don't just freely give up what we've earned. If you pull a knife on me and demand I give you what I busted my ass to earn, you should bet your ass that I would defend it. And if I had a gun, while you pulled a knife, you can bet that I would pull the gun out to defend myself. To give up and admit defeat so easily is just... French.

I don't think I have an absurd idea of guns in America, I certainly don't think the way you've suggested, I don't even believe that every family in America has guns, but how easy is it to acquire them? I'd bet around or above 50% of Americans have guns. I haven't checked though I'm just guessing.

I mean, so continuing the mugger idea, you'd feel safer because if someone tries to steal your property you have a gun to protect yourself with? So I had a look to see whether that actually makes a difference.

86000 robberies in 2010 Britain 0.14% of the population.
367832 robberies in 2010 America 0.12% of the population.

Now, that's really not a lot of difference considering Americans are meant to have means to protect themselves while we don't. It hardly competes with the huge difference in murder ratings. So having a gun doesn't protect you in that instance as far as statistics go and I'd bet it doesn't protect you in many other situations either. It also means you're more likely to get murdered so it's a lose-lose situation is it not?

I just can't understand why people wouldn't want to give up a gun if it would help prevent tragedies like this from occurring.

[Order]

I just can't understand why people wouldn't want to give up a gun if it would help prevent tragedies like this from occurring. ]

It wouldnt prevent shit.
You think the mass shootings in miami in the 80s were performed using american bought guns?
Because they werent.
That is why we wont ever give our guns up. Because italian mobsters brought guns here to eliminate comptition and anyone else who saw. Because columbians shot up shoppingmalls. Because the cartel shoots at border patrol.
These things dont happen in britan. Thats why you dont care about owning a gun or arming your police.
As long as americans are into coke and weed and whatever else is smuggled in, there will be crime organizations shooting at eachother, civillians and law enforcement.

America is not only looked at as the land of opportunity for honest workers. Criminal organizations see it the same way.

Just because there arent daily shootouts between these groups in the US today doesnt mean our law enforcement isnt out there directly preventing it from happening.
Do you think a local gang would roll hard in backwoods north carolina?
They sure as hell wouldnt think about it. Because they know there are a bunch of law-abiding, gun owning, peace-protecting citizens there.
Do they do it in places like NYC?
Yep, because the chances or running into someone with the ability to defend themself is low.

Groups like Im talking about dont even need guns, the hells angels committed a lot of their murders using hammers. Because they could catch people alone.

Thats where gunownership is important. One pistol and it doesnt matter if there are twenty men with hammers after you, you are suddenly able to defend yourself. You have the upperhand by far.

Allow me to lay down another anicdote,

In japan, there are beer vending machines.
It blew my mind that the machines had no locks, no bars, no security at all and they stood, undamaged for years.
This wouldnt be so in america.
In the states, underage kids or poor people would rip those things apart the same night they were dropped off.

So how does this support my point,
Because what works in one country does not work in another.
That mentality of takng what you can get is extremely popular in the US. Where there is vulnerability, there is someone to take advantage.
Is this not the case in japan?
Seems so, or maybe they do not see the vulnerability like I do.

Is it not the case in britan?
Ive never been there. I ask you, shiichi-whatever.

[Sheechiibii]

It wouldnt prevent shit.
You think the mass shootings in miami in the 80s were performed using american bought guns?
Because they werent.
That is why we wont ever give our guns up. Because italian mobsters brought guns here to eliminate comptition and anyone else who saw. Because columbians shot up shoppingmalls. Because the cartel shoots at border patrol.
These things dont happen in britan. Thats why you dont care about owning a gun or arming your police.
As long as americans are into coke and weed and whatever else is smuggled in, there will be crime organizations shooting at eachother, civillians and law enforcement.

America is not only looked at as the land of opportunity for honest workers. Criminal organizations see it the same way.

Just because there arent daily shootouts between these groups in the US today doesnt mean our law enforcement isnt out there directly preventing it from happening.
Do you think a local gang would roll hard in backwoods north carolina?
They sure as hell wouldnt think about it. Because they know there are a bunch of law-abiding, gun owning, peace-protecting citizens there.
Do they do it in places like NYC?
Yep, because the chances or running into someone with the ability to defend themself is low.

Groups like Im talking about dont even need guns, the hells angels committed a lot of their murders using hammers. Because they could catch people alone.

Thats where gunownership is important. One pistol and it doesnt matter if there are twenty men with hammers after you, you are suddenly able to defend yourself. You have the upperhand by far.

Allow me to lay down another anicdote,

In japan, there are beer vending machines.
It blew my mind that the machines had no locks, no bars, no security at all and they stood, undamaged for years.
This wouldnt be so in america.
In the states, underage kids or poor people would rip those things apart the same night they were dropped off.

So how does this support my point,
Because what works in one country does not work in another.
That mentality of takng what you can get is extremely popular in the US. Where there is vulnerability, there is someone to take advantage.
Is this not the case in japan?
Seems so, or maybe they do not see the vulnerability like I do.

Is it not the case in britan?
Ive never been there. I ask you, shiichi-whatever.

Trust me, there is coke and weed in Britain, there are gangs and mobsters in Britain, but they don't bother with the general people, they deal with each other, when I mentioned people who own guns illegally I was talking about people like that. I don't see why there would be much of a difference between gansters here and gansters in America other than the fact that citizens over here are powerless and so are no threat and are left alone, in America anyone could have a gun, they're no longer just innocent bystanders if they could have a gun in their bag.

Like I provided with the percentages, there's just as many muggings over here as in America, yes there are people who will take advantage of others, who are selfish and will hurt others for their own gains. I can't say how bad we are in comparison because I don't live in America but I doubt there is too much difference, there are plenty people who sit on their arses here doing nothing and being looked after by the government, the types of people who would steal from an old lady if she fell over in the street. You get people like that all over the place, it doesn't mean everyone should have a gun. Stealing from someone typically makes you scum but it doesn't mean you deserve to be shot.

As for the Japanese reference, I wouldn't really say that's a fair comparison when the culture is much more different than ours, Britain and America are very similar when it comes to culture, I can't think of any differences at all to be honest.

[Order]

citizens over here are powerless and so are no threat and are left alone,

Really?
So there are no breakins, no rape, no muggings, no murder?

Welp, what a wonderful utopia you have there with your helpless citizens, inept police and gangsters who do whatever they like because there is no threat of impedence.

I especially like your percentages of murders from 2010 comparison, which comes with no source and is more than likely innacurrate, like a lot of statistics I see here.

Please tell me more about your utopian society with polite criminals and law emforcement who uses environmentally friendly vehicles and politicians who are selfless and good.

[Sheechiibii]

Really?
So there are no breakins, no rape, no muggings, no murder?

Welp, what a wonderful utopia you have there with your helpless citizens, inept police and gangsters who do whatever they like because there is no threat of impedence.

I especially like your percentages of murders from 2010 comparison, which comes with no source and is more than likely innacurrate, like a lot of statistics I see here.

Please tell me more about your utopian society with polite criminals and law emforcement who uses environmentally friendly vehicles and politicians who are selfless and good.

I was talking about the people with guns, the drug dealers and mobsters and you know that because you were the one who brought them up. Of course there are rapes and muggings but like I've shown you with the muggings at least there are just as many cases in America as over here. If you want sources type 2010 murder statistics into google, you'll find all the information you need. I've shown you nothing but facts, if you don't believe them then check, it's really not difficult.

Edit: Since you wanted links I went and found them again for you. How many murders in Britain. How many of those were guns. How many murders in America and how many of them were from guns. Robberies in America. Robberies in Britain(2% of 4.3 million is 367,832). Once I had the numbers I got the percentages by searching for the population of both countries on google - it's at the very top - and calculating the percentages from that. I think you'll find I'm not being inacurate all all, quite the opposite.

[Hobaginator]

If you want sources type 2010 murder statistics into google, you'll find all the information you need. I've shown you nothing but facts, if you don't believe them then check, it's really not difficult.

Google in your country might be different than what comes up from google in my country. If you're quoting statistics, you must have to look them up when you do it. I've been wondering where you're getting your numbers from as well. You can't really just name off stat after stat and expect us to 1. take it on trust or 2. go source hunting and number crunching. It's not hard to name your sources. Seems you're being kind of defensive about it. Besides, "google" isn't exactly an accurate source. For all we know, you could be getting your statistics from wikipedia, or worse. Come on, if you're going to give us numbers, give us a valid source. Otherwise you just look like you're making stuff up.

[che]

I understand that it wouldn't be easy to get guns out of the United states, but it's better to suggest that than to turn a blind eye to the damage having those weapons does.

I just can't understand why people wouldn't want to give up a gun if it would help prevent tragedies like this from occurring.

Yeah, on paper. But the people you're going to convince with that argument aren't the problem here. It's the people who take guns into movie theaters or use them to make their weak characters have more power so they can "shortcut" and get what they want.

I would gladly never own a gun (and I don't as of right now). But as I get older, I'm realizing life isn't fair. If I'm going to have a wife and child, I'd rather be educated on how guns work, keep them absolutely out of places children can obtain them, and be able to protect myself and my family from ill-intended people who don't care what the law is.

Just because something is a law doesn't mean people are going to follow it. People break rules and laws all the time, whether they are malicious or not.

Seriously. I'm all for banning guns. I don't think they are needed at all. I hate guns. But most laws you try to pass banning guns will hurt the innocent people more than it will hurt the people who already illegally own guns and intend to use them to harm others. I wish this world were fair and perfect, and I wish the United States was much different, but I can't change that.

I wish there was a sort of electromagnetic pulse for firearms so that you could nullify them. Until that happens, there is nothing better to protect yourself from people who are in possession of guns and intend to use them against innocent people.

I ****ing beg you to try and find a way to make my argument seem stupid or invalid. I would absolutely trade my dignity for a safer world.

[Sheechiibii]

Yeah, on paper. But the people you're going to convince with that argument aren't the problem here. It's the people who take guns into movie theaters or use them to make their weak characters have more power so they can "shortcut" and get what they want.

I would gladly never own a gun (and I don't as of right now). But as I get older, I'm realizing life isn't fair. If I'm going to have a wife and child, I'd rather be educated on how guns work, keep them absolutely out of places children can obtain them, and be able to protect myself and my family from ill-intended people who don't care what the law is.

Just because something is a law doesn't mean people are going to follow it. People break rules and laws all the time, whether they are malicious or not.

Seriously. I'm all for banning guns. I don't think they are needed at all. I hate guns. But most laws you try to pass banning guns will hurt the innocent people more than it will hurt the people who already illegally own guns and intend to use them to harm others. I wish this world were fair and perfect, and I wish the United States was much different, but I can't change that.

I wish there was a sort of electromagnetic pulse for firearms so that you could nullify them. Until that happens, there is nothing better to protect yourself from people who are in possession of guns and intend to use them against innocent people.

I ****ing beg you to try and find a way to make my argument seem stupid or invalid. I would absolutely trade my dignity for a safer world.

I understand where you're coming from. If I lived in a country where everyone had guns I would want to have a gun too. I just think that America should try to come up with ways of stopping that. I mentioned that licenses could be used to confiscate guns from all the people who have licenses, laws could be put in place for fines for firearms to sweep out the remaining ones. There will always be people with guns, like there are in this country, but without ready access people like this boy couldn't have got the guns.

Also, why does America sell anything other than pistols to citizens? I mean, if it's only to protect yourself then why sell machine guns or rifles or stupid weapons like that when they are clearly not only for protection. People don't need that kind of things for anything, it's certainly not protecting, it's just making things worse.

Google in your country might be different than what comes up from google in my country. If you're quoting statistics, you must have to look them up when you do it. I've been wondering where you're getting your numbers from as well. You can't really just name off stat after stat and expect us to 1. take it on trust or 2. go source hunting and number crunching. It's not hard to name your sources. Seems you're being kind of defensive about it. Besides, "google" isn't exactly an accurate source. For all we know, you could be getting your statistics from wikipedia, or worse. Come on, if you're going to give us numbers, give us a valid source. Otherwise you just look like you're making stuff up.

I forgot that google can be different depending on where you are. I've posted up the links anyway. Yes I was feeling defensive, but did you read the comment I was responding to? I mean, could it get much more sarcastic, twisting my words when it was clear exactly what I meant. Typically insults come out when people have no other way to respond but it's still not nice when I hadn't really done anything to warrant it.

[Joxsjua]

For all we know, you could be getting your statistics from wikipedia, or worse. Come on, if you're going to give us numbers, give us a valid source. Otherwise you just look like you're making stuff up.

I'm pretty sure wiki is a safe/sufficient source for "International homicide rates" it has 105 sources from government sites from all around the world, backed by statistics from the United Nations.

I matched there data for the U.S. with this source
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf
U.S. homicide rates 1950-2010.. and the numbers are the same.

In 2010 for every 100,000 people there were 4.8 intentionally killed in the United States.

U.S. - 4.8
U.K. - 1.23
CA - 1.62

U.S. has 2.96 times as many Canadian homicides
and 3.90 times as many as the U.K.

However, ..Canada is 1.32 times the U.K. homicide rate. I understand that Canada has tighter gun laws but if they prohibited civilian-owned guns altogether you think it would replicate U.K. stats and shave off that entire .32?
I'm going to have to go with Order's quote saying "what works for one country does not work with another."

I do believe that we need to tighten our gun laws a bit and make owning a non-registered gun a much more serious offense. Anyone whom chooses mistreat fire-arms should also face stricter penalties and be made an example of publicly as a warning to others. America is so deeply set in it's protection mentality that if some how every civilian gun were to disappear over night, there would be a huge up-rise in creating our own weaponry and passing them out like bibles in some areas.

Half of our country has been divided for many years and it took until 1865 to abolish slavery. It wasn't even until around 1964 racism began to die down a little. Understand that much of that hate still lives on in today's generation as well on every side of that spectrum. So we're not the best examples of rational thinking as a whole. Hostility, resentment, and pride seem to run in our paradigm so we are very reluctant to quit old habits cold-turkey. Take a look around; we're the only "developed" country in the world without national healthcare. We are forced to chose between two different parties that resort to slandering one another and creating fallacies for those participating, to vote 3rd party would be a wasted vote in our system.

There are plenty of people in America that agree with you 100% Sheechiibii but making everyone give up their guns here in the U.S. in this day and age would more than likely just start another civil war or worse. This is why for intense behavior I endorse an even more intense punishment.

[Sheechiibii]

I'm pretty sure wiki is a safe/sufficient source for "International homicide rates" it has 105 sources from government sites from all around the world, backed by statistics from the United Nations.

I matched there data for the U.S. with this source
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf
U.S. homicide rates 1950-2010.. and the numbers are the same.

In 2010 for every 100,000 people there were 4.8 intentionally killed in the United States.

U.S. - 4.8
U.K. - 1.23
CA - 1.62

U.S. has 2.96 times as many Canadian homicides
and 3.90 times as many as the U.K.

However, ..Canada is 1.32 times the U.K. homicide rate. I understand that Canada has tighter gun laws but if they prohibited civilian-owned guns altogether you think it would replicate U.K. stats and shave off that entire .32?
I'm going to have to go with Order's quote saying "what works for one country does not work with another."

I do believe that we need to tighten our gun laws a bit and make owning a non-registered gun a much more serious offense. Anyone whom chooses mistreat fire-arms should also face stricter penalties and be made an example of publicly as a warning to others. America is so deeply set in it's protection mentality that if some how every civilian gun were to disappear over night, there would be a huge up-rise in creating our own weaponry and passing them out like bibles in some areas.

Half of our country has been divided for many years and it took until 1865 to abolish slavery. It wasn't even until around 1964 racism began to die down a little. Understand that much of that hate still lives on in today's generation as well on every side of that spectrum. So we're not the best examples of rational thinking as a whole. Hostility, resentment, and pride seem to run in our paradigm so we are very reluctant to quit old habits cold-turkey. Take a look around; we're the only "developed" country in the world without national healthcare. We are forced to chose between two different parties that resort to slandering one another and creating fallacies for those participating, to vote 3rd party would be a wasted vote in our system.

There are plenty of people in America that agree with you 100% Sheechiibii but making everyone give up their guns here in the U.S. in this day and age would more than likely just start another civil war or worse. This is why for intense behavior I endorse an even more intense punishment.

Surely they could abolish certain types of weaponry though at least? I don't know anything about gun laws in Canada and what they allow or anything but like I said above, nobody needs a machine gun or assault rifle to protect themselves do they? Those types of weapons are not made for protection, they are made to kill. Would those American's opposed to giving up guns altogether settle for something like that? Having a pistol-only law where it would be an offence to own or carry anything more than that. 1 gun per person also, nobody needs more than one gun to protect themselves.

There are many ways to cut down on gun crime, but I still say that without the weaponry to do it, murder on this scale cannot and would not happen. If some people in America would rather keep their gun at the expense of so many people's lives then there will just have to be other changes, more control over gun owning.

[Hobaginator]

I hate guns.

I wish this world were fair and perfect, and I wish the United States was much different, but I can't change that.

I wish there was a sort of electromagnetic pulse for firearms so that you could nullify them.

I ****ing beg you to try and find a way to make my argument seem stupid or invalid. I would absolutely trade my dignity for a safer world.

What argument? All I see is a bunch of what ifs and I wish's. I'd love to make your argument seem stupid or invalid, believe me, but there's nothing of substance in there for me to work with. Bullets aren't the only thing that causes loss of human life. We're talking a complete overhaul and change on particle physics and chemistry of the universe if you want to end human suffering. There's natural disasters, fires, fast-moving objects, heavy objects, falls, disease, toxics, starvation and simple lack of oxygen to the brain that can kill you. What are you doing to change that? Or are all of your words just flowing from your bleeding heart?

[Joxsjua]

Surely they could abolish certain types of weaponry though at least? I don't know anything about gun laws in Canada and what they allow or anything but like I said above, nobody needs a machine gun or assault rifle to protect themselves do they? Those types of weapons are not made for protection, they are made to kill. Would those American's opposed to giving up guns altogether settle for something like that? Having a pistol-only law where it would be an offence to own or carry anything more than that. 1 gun per person also, nobody needs more than one gun to protect themselves.

There are many ways to cut down on gun crime, but I still say that without the weaponry to do it, murder on this scale cannot and would not happen. If some people in America would rather keep their gun at the expense of so many people's lives then there will just have to be other changes, more control over gun owning.

The problem with 1 gun/pistol rule is that pistols are only used for close range. What if at my house I see people breaking on to my property that I believe have the violent intentions towards me or my family? At 100 yards away a pistol isn't very accurate so a rifle would be in my best interest. Registered guns are not the problem, it's the violent people with no hope or options left that continue making a series of unhealthy/unwise choices.

94.4% gang murders are committed with guns.(135) Gangs are responsible for between 48% and 90% of all violent crime.(136)
135 Homicide trends in the United States, Bureau of Justice Statistics, January 17 2007
136 2011 National Gang Threat Assessment, FBI, September 2011

I myself don't see a real need for a full-auto gun but there are some intense guidelines to even owning one. Nor are they a real threat of any in the U.S..
Even back at the beginning of the 1980's when our murder rate was it's highest..
In the drug-ridden Miami of 1980, fewer than 1% of all gun homicides were with machine guns.(166)
166 Miami Herald, August 23, 1984, based on figures from Dr. Joseph Davis, Dade County medical examiner

Now if your suggestion is that we rely on the police for our protection..
Tell that to 14,748 murder victims, 367,832 robbery victims, and 84,767 forcible rape victims that the police could not help.(316)
316 Crime In The United States 2010, Federal Bureau of Investigations

The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals. In Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981), the court stated: “… courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.” Well, except for politicians whom receive taxpayer-financed bodyguards.


We can now take time in the discussion to look how stricter gun laws have affected other countries.
According to the U.N., as of 2005, Scotland was the most violent country in the developed world, with people three times more likely to be assaulted than in America. Violent crime there has doubled over the last 20 years. 3% of Scots had been victims of assault compared with 1.2% in America.(2)
2 Scotland tops list of world's most violent countries, The Times, September 19, 2005

And how did Britain fair?
Ironically, firearm use in crimes in the UK has doubled in the decade since handguns were banned.(15)
Britan has the highest rate of violent crime in Europe, more so than the United States or even South Africa. They also have the second highest over all crime rate in the European Union. In 2008, Britan had a violent crime rate nearly five times higher than the United states (446 vs. 2034 pre 100,000 population).(16)
15 Weapons sell for just £50 as suspects and victims grow ever younger, The Times, August 24, 2007.
16 The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S., Daily Mail, July 3, 2009, citing a joint report of the European Commission and United Nations.

Also make note:
Comparing crime rates between America and Britain is fundamentally flawed. In America, a gun crime is recorded as a gun crime. In Britain, a crime is only recorded when there is a final disposition (a conviction). All unsolved gun crimes in Britain are not reported as gun crimes, grossly under-counting the amount of gun crime there.(21) To make matters worse, British law enforcement has been exposed for falsifying criminal reports to create falsely lower crime figures, in part to preserve tourism.(22)
21 Fear in Britain, Gallant, Hills, Kopel, Independence Institute, July 18, 2000.
22 Crime Figures a Sham, Say Police, Daily Telegraph, April 1, 1996.

As well as,..

The U.K. measures crime using two different processes:
British Crime Survey (BCS): The Home Office conducts surveys of the population to determine how often subjects have been affected by criminal activity. Data is projected to reflect the entire population.
Police reporting: Crimes are reported to the police and nationwide, census-level statistics are summarized.
The BCS has been reporting a declining crime rate in the UK while police reporting has shown an increase. The BCS has routinely been criticized because it under reports crime due to the following factors:
• Murdered and imprisoned people do not answer surveys
• Some crimes are not surveyed when victims are below age 16(528)
• Crime against institutions (bank robbery, etc.) are not included
• Crimes are recorded at final disposition (conviction/acquittal), leaving many crimes completely unreported(529)

These deficiencies are so significant that even the British government does not believe the accuracy of the BCS.
[T]he BCS did not record ‘various categories of violent crime’, including murder and rape, retail crime, drug-taking, or offences in which the victims were aged below 16. The most reliable measure of crime is that which is reported to the police. We're facing over a million violent crimes a year for the first time in history.(530)
One curious tidbit: Murder rates initially appear to decline after 2002/2003. This is chiefly due to the scores of killings attributed to serial killer, Dr. Harold Frederick Shipman, which were booked in 2002/03 and did not recur in 2003/04.
More curious are the sudden leaps in reported violent crime when the British Home Office enforced standardized methods for recording reported crime (which led the Home Office to claim crime reports to be of poor quality, and thus rely on the suspect survey mechanism):
The 1998 changes to the Home Office Counting Rules had a very significant impact on violent crime; the numbers of such crimes recorded by the police increased by 83 per cent as a result of the 1998 changes … The National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS), introduced in April 2002, again resulted in increased recording of violent crimes particularly for less serious violent offences.(531)
528 This is a serious omission as most gang crime is committed by and against young people.
529 “Fear in Britain,” Dr. Paul Gallant and Dr. Joanne Eisen, National Review, July 18, 2000.
530 “Row over figures as crime drops 5%,” David Davis, Shadow Home Secretary, The Guardian, July 22, 2004.
531 "Crime in England and Wales 2005/06," British Home Office, July 2006.


I encourage everyone to challenge these statements, hopefully, using better references than I could find.
There's no way, given our history, that we'll be submitting our guns any time soon. The idea of eradicating all guns sounds helpful but there are just too many other factors you must take into account.

The better question to ask is: Should we raise the consequences for people that choose to victimize the innocent, like this guy that attacked the movie-goers? If so, how do we do that?

[Order]

Top ten biggest shootings of all time:
Top 10 Deadliest Rampage Killers
I realize the source might not exactly be MIT, but here is an interesting read anyway.
In short:
10. Texas -- 1991
9. Cave of Patriarchs -- 1994 (I don't know, you look up where it is... I didn't even read until top 5.)
8. Japan -- 1938
7. It... doesn't say where. I don't care.
6. Virgina Tech -- 2007 (I think most of you will remember that)
5. Russia -- 1999 (this guy got caught by "rebels" days after. The police were that slow?)
4. Australia -- 1996 (There is apparently a lot of detail about this shooting. He told his psychiatrist he was thinking about it.)
3. Congo -- 1957 (same guy had apparently done it before...)
2. South Korea -- 1982
1. Norway -- 2011


The question is, where were the police during these massacres?
I'm particuarly interested in American law enforcement. What is the proceedure for indiscriminant mass murder in progress?
Do they form a parimeter and immidiately start hunting for the perpitrator?
Can one single LEO who might happen to be at the scene when it starts take action, or are they instructed to wait for a larger force?

Here's a thought:
We have bomb disposal robots.
We can put guns on them.
That already exists, what would be the ballistics of putting one of those in a police cruiser?
How much would it cost?
Would it be feasable to put one in every police car in every city?

Would you want police having that kind of equipment?
I mean, something that can get shot a few times before it's destroyed, something that carries a rifle or shotgun which can be operated remotely.
Something that, if actually implimented could possibly be abused. I'm thinking using one to approach a vehicle with a broken tail light, considering the gun would point where the camera does...
You see where I'm going.

P.S.
I throw this out there because the gun control debate is about to devolve into lefties repeating things as if they are new points and unwittingly providing biased statistics (as Jox-whatever pointed out...) while the righties find new ways to express that America is a separate country with very specific beliefs about firearms and their purpose.
Besides, when it comes down to it, most of you already have the laws in place which establish the gun control you want.
Why are you so vocal about a foreign population jumping on the bandwagon?
Are you embarrassed that you were fooled into giving up your firearms so easily?
Are you insulted that we take very seriously a right which you never saw the need for until it was gone and you began considering what would really happen if the worst-case-scenario played out?
And don't say it can't happen.
I just listed ten places where it did.

[Alpha]

Another simple question: If he was wearing some form of body armour and threw cans of noxious gas (I'd wager obscuring vision in the process) as witnesses have stated, what difference would the presence of a concealed arms-carrier have made to the unfolding of events?

[Joxsjua]

Another simple question: If he was wearing some form of body armour and threw cans of noxious gas (I'd wager obscuring vision in the process) as witness have stated, what difference would the presence of a concealed arms-carrier have made to the unfolding of events?

I don't think removing the "concealed guns not prohibited" sign would have made much difference. Civilians aren't trained in: 'screen-flashing', it's dark, *bang poww* explosive went off, misguiding sounds every where.. now I have to advance avoiding hostages while I fire and my partner shoots 6 inches from my head, teamwork required scenario like delta force. Plus, it was midnight at a comic-book movie debut; these aren't your fire-arm expert demography.

I can only think of making an example out of him to discourage others from repeating the terrorism this media-hyped lunatic performed.
Again, I'm going with: stripping a few rights, harvesting his body once we are positive he tests negative for drugs,.. bing-bang, easy 200,000k profit from his remains. ..before that, possibly hook him up to a blood bag for a few years forcing him to donate in the mean-time while his sentence awaits..
You can argue if these people can be helped but there has got be at least a certain number of lives taken away to the point where you have to admit some people just can not be restored to mental stability.


FYI, I'm a lefty so I hope this isn't to De-evolved for you Order.


[editor's note]Updated now as I'm watching 'world news now' and 'Up to the minute CBS' they're revealing he was a neuro-science graduate that was receiving a federal grant to go to school as well as 26k from the government each year for spending money ...I think we can rule out that the meth abuse speculation made earlier

Halie, the 3 month old baby was not shot but was taken to the hospital for evaluation. The youngest victim was a 6 yr old girl R.I.P.[end note]

[Sheechiibii]

Are you embarrassed that you were fooled into giving up your firearms so easily?

Don't be ridiculous, just because it's not my country doesn't mean I don't care when 50 people were hurt and 14/15 were murdered because of some stupid 'need' for guns. Your idea about the police using those weapons (the robots) would be good but from the looks of things the problem in America is that the general public do not want anyone to have more powerfull weapons than them. They don't want the police to be stronger than them so how can the police then be expected to protect people when they no longer have the power to do so?

The problem with 1 gun/pistol rule is that pistols are only used for close range. What if at my house I see people breaking on to my property that I believe have the violent intentions towards me or my family? At 100 yards away a pistol isn't very accurate so a rifle would be in my best interest. Registered guns are not the problem, it's the violent people with no hope or options left that continue making a series of unhealthy/unwise choices.

That says it all to me really. Nobody is a threat to you at that distance, nobody can harm you from that far away, yet you want the means to kill them from that distance? I'm begining to see why there are so many murders in America, people are so quick to use a weapon on someone for petty reasons, deadly weapons at that. If someone was looking to break in to your home then you don't need a gun until they are at your home about to break in. Until that point they may look suspicious, but you could be killing a completely innocent person.

[Order]

FYI, I'm a lefty so I hope this isn't to De-evolved for you Order.

Horribly so.

were murdered because of some stupid 'need' for guns.

Oh, is that why he did it?
Because he had a gun lying around and thought, 'why the hell not?'
All this time I thought it was because he was a psychopath, but it turns out, thats what happens when a gun is nearby.

Oh, snap! My .45 is right here on the coffee table, excuse me, I am now obligated to go on a rampage. Back in a few.


You're a moron.

people are so quick to use a weapon on someone for petty reasons

You're still a moron.
The point is self-defense is the last choice on a long list of other options. Nit picking specific scenarios presented aside.
There is nothing noble about gun control.
It changes nothing.
Look at California which has some strict laws for the US. There are gang-related shootings there on a daily basis.

You are not promoting a morally good cause by wanting more gun control in the US.
You are just another bleeding heart who doesnt take the time to understand that the culture and the country you are talking about is not like your own. Your ideas are clearly poorly thought out on the topic, but you don't know that because you arent american.

Besides, gun control did nothing to effect Britan's rate of violent crimes but increase them.
Evidence was previously provided, yet to be discredited.

Youre about as wrong as you can get while still standing on the same planet.

[Hobaginator]

just because it's not my country doesn't mean I don't care when 50 people were hurt and 14/15 were murdered because of some stupid 'need' for guns.

They were hurt and murdered because of a nutjob. If he didn't have guns, he would have used bombs.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/48301281

He possibly could have killed even more people -- with bombs.

That says it all to me really. Nobody is a threat to you at that distance, nobody can harm you from that far away, yet you want the means to kill them from that distance? I'm begining to see why there are so many murders in America, people are so quick to use a weapon on someone for petty reasons, deadly weapons at that.

Sorry, but apparently you've never met the Hell's Angels, bloods, crips or any of the other numerous gangs that span across the entire country, or been caught alone by 20 of them. America is a big place... lots of space for people to do all sorts of horrible things to each other. Also, note that Jox already pointed out that your whole "america has more murders" arguement is invalid due to the corrupt census system Britain uses to record violent crime and murders. Thanks for that one, Jox.

If someone was looking to break in to your home then you don't need a gun until they are at your home about to break in. Until that point they may look suspicious, but you could be killing a completely innocent person.

Shooting somebody before they break and enter is illegal in the U.S.A. So yes, you're correct. Except that we have to wait for them to completely break and enter before we're allowed to shoot. Let me give you a basic rundown of North Carolina law to give you an idea of how our laws protect the innocent.

My yard is 22 acres and has "no trespassing" signs at every entry point at short (less than 50 yard) intervals, a gate on the front entrance, and a log placed across the back entrance to prevent ATVs and the like from entering our back yard.

1.Offense—A person commits the offense of first degree trespass if, without authorization, he enters or remains: 1.On premises of another so enclosed or secured as to demonstrate clearly an intent to keep out intruders; or 2.In a building of another. 2.(Effective January 1, 1995) Classification—First degree trespass is a Class 2 misdemeanor.
14-159.13. Second degree trespass.
1.Offense—A person commits the offense of second degree trespass if, without authorization, he enters or remains on premises of another: 1.After he has been notified not to enter or remain there by the owner, by a person in charge of the premises, by a lawful occupant, or by another authorized person; or 2.That are posted, in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, with notice not to enter the premises.

There is a section that I left out, because it's very long -- but children are always treated as "invitees" so as to protect them from harm. Usually they will run away if you confront them, or you can call their parents. Anybody invited to your property such as hunters, fishers, firewood cutters etc are invitees. Anybody not invited by you becomes a tresspasser, except for kids.

So if any adult enters my property, due to the posted signs (they have to be within 250 yards of each other, here they are >50), legally they are automatically suspect of second degree tresspass. This is a misdemeanor - meaning that in NC, as a citizen, I still can't "detain" a suspect (citizen's arrest isn't recognized in North Carolina). However, I can tell him to leave and if he doesn't I can use "resonable force" in removing the trespasser from my property. In other words, I can kick his ass and drag him to the boundary. If he resists or fights back, in NC, he can become suspect of assault. I can escalate force if nesseccary (if he stabs me I can shoot him, for example). If he is armed, I could confront him while carrying my rifle and either tell him to get off of my property, or demand that he lay his firearm down while we wait for the police to arrive, and I wouldn't be in the wrong. If he resists and points his firearm at me, legal or not, I'm going to shoot him. I'd rather face jail time then get shot by some idiot tresspassing poacher.
Now, if he were to commit a felony such as breaking and entering -- in NC I can shoot him as soon as he crosses the threshold, or I can legally detain him until the police arrive. It's my choice.
This guy made his choice:
http://johnjacobh.wordpress.com/2009...oots-intruder/

Way I see it, there are 4 kinds of people in this world. There are Sheep, Wolves, Sheep Dogs, and Shepherds. Sheep (the mass of the populace that desires nothing more than a peaceful existence and to be left alone), the Wolves (bad guys), the Sheep Dogs (citizens who are ready and willing to fight the Wolves), and the Shepherds (figures of authority such as police, politicians, lawmakers etc -- Shepherds can be benevolent or corrupt).
Sheep dogs don't want to have their teeth pulled, because wolves will always have their teeth. That's the point that I'm making.

Before any of you who don't have their concealed carry liscence continue to argue against the legal possession of firearms in the States, I suggest you go over this basic course material that all Concealed Carry Liscencees have studied and tested out on during our CCL class. At the very least, skim over it. If you aren't sure about the laws, please use it to reference your arguements.

http://www.concealandcarryhq.com/

Concealed Carry Liscencees have also tested out with basic pistol accuracy and speed. A score too low on either the course material or the pistol accuracy means no Concealed Carry Liscence. If you don't want one, you don't have to get one -- happy sheep. If you don't pass the background check, you can't get one -- wolves can't conceal carry unless they haven't been caught yet (most of them have). The law is designed to ensure that Concealed Carry Liscencees are the Sheep Dogs, dog.

[Sheechiibii]

Oh, is that why he did it?
Because he had a gun lying around and thought, 'why the hell not?'
All this time I thought it was because he was a psychopath, but it turns out, thats what happens when a gun is nearby.

Could he have caused that distruction without the weapons your country hands out? No. No matter what mental state, without the resources mass murder like this cannot happen.

There is nothing noble about gun control.
It changes nothing.

Apart from lessening the chances of massacres you mean? Of course that's not noble at all. Don't you know what logic is? If someone wants to kill 15 people and injure 50 in the space of a few minutes how do they do that? In a country that gives people guns left right and centre it's extremely easy. There is no argument for that.

[Hobaginator]

Could he have caused that distruction without the weapons your country hands out? No. No matter what mental state, without the resources mass murder like this cannot happen.

Yes, with home made bombs like the ones in his apartment. You think guns are the only way to quickly kill a shitload of people? Wrong.

Apart from lessening the chances of massacres you mean? Of course that's not noble at all. Don't you know what logic is? If someone wants to kill 15 people and injure 50 in the space of a few minutes how do they do that? In a country that gives people guns left right and centre it's extremely easy. There is no argument for that.

Unless he uses bombs instead, which he could have, and more people could have been killed. Or he could have blocked off exits and set the building on fire. Or he could have thrown a few molotov cocktails in the theater and stood in the only open exit with a chain saw and a bomb strapped to his chest. Or he could have used nerve gas. Or he could have driven a dump truck through the wall with a pipe bomb under the gas tank. Or he could have put poison in the drink machine.

Would you like me to continue showing you why your opinion is invalid?

[Order]

Apart from lessening the chances of massacres you mean?

1. Norway -- 2011

If someone wants to kill 15 people and injure 50 in the space of a few minutes how do they do that?

The japanese red army used nerve gas in the public train system.

In a country that gives people guns left right and centre it's extremely easy.

So people don't get shot in Britan, then?
That's what your census states.
That any unsolved gun-related murder is recorded as simply a 'crime'.
Not homicide.
Not a shooting.
Just a regular, traffic ticket crime.

Don't you know what logic is?

[Hobaginator]

http://gma.yahoo.com/james-holmes-go...opstories.html

I think there are two possibilities going on here, one is that he is in the middle of a psychotic episode which is quite possible. We see him distracted at multiple points, an almost sort of 'coming to' and trying to figure out where he is and process what's going on, the other thing that we're seeing -- and we've seen some of this behavior in the past couple months -- might suggest mania. Meaning hyperactivity, hyper energy, been possibly up and not sleeping for days. What we might be seeing here is the post effects.

Maybe he fried his brain on bath salts. Maybe the stress of his neuroscience degree was too much for him and he finally snapped... Who knows.

The second video mentions that he had been buying guns online and posting adds on dating sights titled "will you come visit me in prison". Do you think that situations like this can be better avoided with more cyber-surveillence? Should the govornment be allowed and able to track all internet activity? Should the govornment have kept better tabs on his high-dollar govornment grant, the money of which he may have used to purchase his weapons? Should the fed be able to track our day to day purchases? Would that change anything for the better?

Also, after shooting up the movie theater, why would he tip the police off that his apartment was booby-trapped with explosives? Wasn't his goal to kill people? Do you think he feels some sort of remorse for his actions? Why would he sabotage his own attempts of domestic terrorism? Blowing up the police who would go to investigate his apartment seems like it would have been the Joker's coup de grace, so to speak. Why would he abandon his persona now?

This whole thing is just weird.

[Joxsjua]

That says it all to me really. Nobody is a threat to you at that distance, nobody can harm you from that far away, yet you want the means to kill them from that distance? I'm begining to see why there are so many murders in America, people are so quick to use a weapon on someone for petty reasons, deadly weapons at that. If someone was looking to break in to your home then you don't need a gun until they are at your home about to break in. Until that point they may look suspicious, but you could be killing a completely innocent person.

I have a group of men in ski-masks charging my house carrying weapons that have ignore sign posted warnings and verbal warnings that I have made clear to them.. I'm not waiting until they kick down my front door to take action. Protecting innocent people from trauma, rape and murder is my first priority and I'm not waiting until they are with-in arms reach inside my house to take action.

Could you maybe come back with some credible references/sources debating the topic further. It's turning this whole discussion in to assuming most Americans aren't responsible enough to know better. We have already discredited the idea 'countries become safer after taking away their guns away.'
If this isn't something you believe to be true, either: re-read my post made earlier about Scotland and the UK becoming more violent OR show us some concrete proof that we can better understand and be educated with other than your emotional judgement.

[Editor's note] Pretty lame that the only other person to discuss possible re-working disciplinary actions and discourage others whom might want to copy this trend in here was Merlin.. Or is this just a gun/violence debate in here now? [/end note]

[che]

It's fine. I think all of us in this discussion have some things to learn. It definitely won't harm us to talk about it.

But the counter-argument to the United States being violent and reckless with guns isn't "That other country is getting more violent too!"

[Order]

re-working disciplinary actions

This guy wasnt concerned with any consequences. Much like the others who have committed similar crimes.
Would any threat of consequence have deterred him?
Would any example made of this man stop future psychopaths?

I dont think so, thats why I didnt touch the topic.

Look at their personality, thought proccess and goals of someone who has commited this type of crime?
Are they the type to weigh the pros and cons of it?
Nope.

[Joxsjua]

This guy wasnt concerned with any consequences. Much like the others who have committed similar crimes.
Would any threat of consequence have deterred him?
Would any example made of this man stop future psychopaths?

I dont think so, thats why I didnt touch the topic.

Look at they personality, thought proccess and goals of someone who has commited this type of crime?
Are they the type to weigh the pros and cons of it?
Nope.

I think that the 'death sentence' for him and people like him is too lenient.


As I see if people who are going to commit suicide now have 2 options if they opt not to seek mental help..

1. the obvious suicide alone


2. affect many others in the process. At the end of their rampage they either kill them-self OR get caught - which results in much wasted tax payers' dollars to achieve the same fate but now he has the attention of "media" focused on him until his dieing days.

[Order]

I agree the the death sentence can only deter somewhat sane people, or people who fear death I should say...

I agree that death or life in prison are not harsh enough for this man to suffer like he deserves.

But how far can we really go?

In the case I listed in russia, the murderer was delivered to the families of the victims and survivors who beat him to death with pipes.
Is that the kind of thing we are talking about?

The american justice system as it stands is designed to prevent things like that example.

I dont know, its funny how I bash people for not being able to take a stance, but I am undecided on the severity of punishment for crimes like this.

The crime goes far beyond murder. The punishment should as well and I dont mean just multiple counts of murder, I mean that this is a completely different kind of violence all together.
How far can our justice system go?
What is a fair amount of suffering for this guy?

Crazy or not, he should not come out of the courts with his life. I am sure of that much.
In all honesty, when criminals like this are sitting in the courtroom, it makes me sick to imagine that they are allowed to sit in a chair, in airconditioning and be entertained by the specticle of their trial. Thats what it is to a person like this anyway, because he surely does not empathize in the least. Any sign of remorse would have to be merely an act.
Even the mass murderers who commit suicide in the end are not showing remorse, they are simply insane and any thoughts in their mind would not be anything close to a true human being because clearly, they are not one.