Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Colorado shooting during batman screening. 14 dead and over 50 injured.

Colorado shooting during batman screening. 14 dead and over 50 injured. (Page 2)
Thread Tools
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 08:37 AM
 
I've said before in other threads and I'll say it again here. I'm not big advocate of gun control legislation. I even think gun registration is rather pointless. That being said I do support a requirement for instant background checks to determine if a potential purchaser of a firearms is legally prohibited from doing so due to violent crime conviction or mental illness. And I also am completely against the general public being able to purchase military grade weaponry. You want a handgun or a shotgun or a rifle to protect your home or business? Fine with me. But a military grade assault rifle with a 100 round magazine is NOT a "protect your home" kind of weapon. It is NOT a "go Bambi hunting" kind of weapon. Without question anyone who is hellbent on mass murder can find other ways to achieve that objective. But that doesn't mean that we as a society should make it EASY for them by allowing them to LEGALLY purchase that type of firepower.

With that being said, my heart goes out to survivors and the family and friends of all who perished.

OAW
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 08:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
Most people who own a gun are not "gun nuts," and your use of the term shows how impartial and well thought out your points really are.

I never said most gun owners. If you are one of those people who comes out and defends the gun laws before any one questions them every time there is a shooting, or if you are one of those people who says "if everyone else had had their guns then lives would have been saved", you're probably a gun a nut.

Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
Huh?
Its not complicated. Try reading it again.


Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
Interesting point. Was it derived from your your psychiatric training. A planned death is a death.
It actually IS an interesting point. Shame you don't see the difference.

Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
Again, most gun owners are not "gun nuts." They are responsible adults, who have licenses to own, and often, carry, their weapons, and treat them accordingly. Society is always going to have it's share of mentally unbalanced individuals, who, for whatever reason, feel a need to extract vengeance against others. Those are the "gun nuts," and the rest of us aren't to be lumped in the same category, just because you haven't a clue as to what you're talking about. FBI statistics show that violent crime, including homicide, have declined steadily in the last thirty or so years, while gun ownership has increased significantly. There are approximately 80 million of your "gun nuts" in America, who own approximately 250 million weapons, yet you're safer today than you were thirty years ago from "gun nuts," which shows exactly how uninformed you are on the subject.
It actually happens frequently, due to media sensationalism. It's just that people such as yourself are so eager to pick up on quick talking points, rather than digesting the whole picture, that you don't see it.

Again, I never said all gun owners were 'nuts'. Some people have a legitimate need to own and use guns.

The fact that you have jumped to put false accusations in my mouth and focussed on my lack of psychiatric credentials which I quite reasonably stated myself shows the strength of your own arguments.

Bottom line:
Guns are for killing and only for killing. Handguns and assault weapons are designed specifically for killing people;
The argument that owning a gun is necessary for self defence is a self fulfilling prophecy. You only need one because anyone or everyone else has one;
If people are carrying guns around, more people will get shot. People lose their tempers, if they have a gun on their person, they are much more likely to shoot someone than if they have to go home and retrieve it from a gun safe. People drink and take drugs and then drive cars. Do you honestly think they don't do the same while carrying their gun? Are they going to say "I just have to run home and put my gun away before I can have a beer with you"? I don't think they are. Do carry licenses get revoked if you are caught carrying a gun under the influence?

I at least have the decency to weigh my position against practicality and to acknowledge the shades of grey. I don't believe America can just implement UK style gun control laws all of a sudden even if they wanted to. It wouldn't work because there are too many guns in the wild already. It also doesn't change the mindset that keeps guns and wars so popular with americans or address the reasons that some of them get unhappy or unstable enough to go on these rampages. Gun nuts see this as a black and white issue and just say "guns don't kill people..." If only it were that simple.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
SSharon
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Teaneck, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 09:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Guns are for killing and only for killing. Handguns and assault weapons are designed specifically for killing people;
You have a lot of fair points, but this isn't one of them. Do you honestly believe that guns are only for killing? I think the second line, which is more accurate might be clouding things. The fact that guns might be designed for killing (and not all are) does not mean that killing is their only purpose.

Do people make the same argument about archery?
AT&T iPhone 5S and 6; 13" MBP; MDD G4.
     
osiris
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 09:30 AM
 
I'm still wondering how this guy simply walked into a movie theater with a bag of weapons dressed the way he was. Maybe it's me, but if someone walked into a theatre near me like that, the manager would've asked "what the hell do you have in the bag". I guess I don't know Colorado. Tragedy, nonetheless.
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
     
SSharon
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Teaneck, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 09:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by osiris View Post
I'm still wondering how this guy simply walked into a movie theater with a bag of weapons dressed the way he was.  Maybe it's me, but if someone walked into a theatre near me like that, the manager would've asked "what the hell do you have in the bag".  I guess I don't know Colorado.  Tragedy, nonetheless.  
I'm not sure if this is accurate, but I heard that he was dressed normally, bought a ticket to Batman, exited the theater through the emergency exit that he parked his car close to, changed into his new gear and then returned through that exit.
AT&T iPhone 5S and 6; 13" MBP; MDD G4.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 09:41 AM
 
^This is what I read too. So theaters banning costumes (as I've read AMC is doing)will solve nothing. You can wear kevlar under your clothes and look completely normal as well.

Every time this kind of horrible thing happens, people try to "fix" it so it can't happen again. Metal detectors at school doors. Bag checks. How effective is this?

If someone in the theater had been carrying a legal concealed weapon, what are the odds, in the dark, with teargas, they would have hit the shooter and not another innocent bystander?

This guy purchased his guns legally. There's no test for future insanity unless we go all Minority Report.
     
SSharon
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Teaneck, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 09:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
^This is what I read too. So theaters banning costumes (as I've read AMC is doing)will solve nothing. You can wear kevlar under your clothes and look completely normal as well.
Every time this kind of horrible thing happens, people try to "fix" it so it can't happen again. Metal detectors at school doors. Bag checks. How effective is this?
If someone in the theater had been carrying a legal concealed weapon, what are the odds, in the dark, with teargas, they would have hit the shooter and not another innocent bystander?
This guy purchased his guns legally. There's no test for future insanity unless we go all Minority Report.
Sounds like you agree with what I've been saying here.

Incidentally, apparently there was someone at a local theater by me that showed up in a costume and was asked by police to change before the shooting took place.
AT&T iPhone 5S and 6; 13" MBP; MDD G4.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 09:48 AM
 
Shouldn't have exiting via the emergency exit set off an alarm?
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 09:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Shouldn't have exiting via the emergency exit set off an alarm?
One would think. That has been the part about this that has troubled me from the beginning. How did he open the emergency exit from outside? And how did this happen w/o setting off the alarm?

OAW
     
osiris
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 09:58 AM
 
ok, that makes a little more sense.
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 10:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I'm not moving any goalposts
Here is the original question I answered:

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Classic argument and a great point. But there's a classic counter point: would he have been able to kill *as many* people in so little time?
I answer this question and this is the response:

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Yes it boils down to the same old tired arguments. The gun nuts claim that someone who wants to commit mass murder will find a way somehow, whether its guns, bombs, knives, cars, bricks or cheese. Then they ask if the liberals would have them ban all these household items just to be safe from dairy based killing sprees on the off chance but of course they overlook that these other items all have purposes that don't involve killing people and also they overlook the convenience and level of detachment involved.
Where in your original question do you ask about repurposing, convenience, or detachment?
     
SSharon
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Teaneck, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 11:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Shouldn't have exiting via the emergency exit set off an alarm?
Perhaps I shouldn't have called it an emergency exit since I don't know that for a fact. Again, not knowing the details, but it is possible the door was a front or side exit to be used after movies for a quick exit and was not necessarily an alarmed emergency exit. Just slipping in a piece of paper would prevent it from locking behind you and in a dark theater nobody would notice that for 20 minutes.
AT&T iPhone 5S and 6; 13" MBP; MDD G4.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 11:11 AM
 
I may regret saying this, but is it possible this wasn't a preventable event?

It's way too early to tell, given what little details I've seen on the guy, but at a certain point, things will slip through the cracks as a result of either convenience or freedom. I mean, we could install metal detectors and post guards at all exits to make sure no one sneaks in, but at a certain point its a lot of work to prevent freak events, right?

*This is not to belittle or diminish what happened. But just like we will never get the murder rate or traffic fatalities to zero, this shit will happen, right?
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 11:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I may regret saying this, but is it possible this wasn't a preventable event?
It's way too early to tell, given what little details I've seen on the guy, but at a certain point, things will slip through the cracks as a result of either convenience or freedom. I mean, we could install metal detectors and post guards at all exits to make sure no one sneaks in, but at a certain point its a lot of work to prevent freak events, right?
*This is not to belittle or diminish what happened. But just like we will never get the murder rate or traffic fatalities to zero, this shit will happen, right?
The possibility certainly exists. This (coward of) a man was highly intelligent and calculated with his attack, and IMO would have pulled it off regardless.

Perhaps this is a wake up call to movie theaters and other places of mass gathering that emergency exits should be alarmed, and access to those sections where people gather should have employees along the way.

Had he not been able to come back in via the EE, it is likely the death/injured toll would have been far less.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 11:23 AM
 
I think it's likely he didn't use an emergency exit but used side exits that are usually locked from the outside.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 11:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by SSharon View Post
You have a lot of fair points, but this isn't one of them. Do you honestly believe that guns are only for killing? I think the second line, which is more accurate might be clouding things. The fact that guns might be designed for killing (and not all are) does not mean that killing is their only purpose.
Do people make the same argument about archery?
Well ok, you can use them for sport but I think the killer would have killed far less people with a longbow. A bow can also be used for hunting and I am not advocating any ban on hunting rifles or shotguns.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 11:44 AM
 
Do we have any archery mass killings in gunless states? I seem to recall knifings being higher than average in the UK since firearms are more heavily restricted.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 11:45 AM
 
We should all bear in mind that this nutjob had an assault rifle with a 100 round magazine. The only reason even more people aren't dead is because that particular weapon jammed and he had to use his other weapons that couldn't deliver the same level of lethality in such a short period of time.

OAW
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 11:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Here is the original question I answered:
I answer this question and this is the response:
Where in your original question do you ask about repurposing, convenience, or detachment?
Look closer and you may notice that the original question was not mine. I was simply responding to the very common argument of "if we should ban guns then we should also ban..."
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 12:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Look closer and you may notice that the original question was not mine. I was simply responding to the very common argument of "if we should ban guns then we should also ban..."
Are you noticing the pattern of me confusing you for the exact same person?

Sorry. My bad, again.
     
SSharon
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Teaneck, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 12:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Do we have any archery mass killings in gunless states? I seem to recall knifings being higher than average in the UK since firearms are more heavily restricted.
Before this line of thought gets too far off topic, keep in mind that I brought up archery for a specific purpose. The claim was that the sole purpose of guns is to kill people and historically that is the same as for archery. Currently, both are used for sport, yet one is still treated much differently than the other (nobody says bows should be banned).

Originally Posted by OAW View Post
We should all bear in mind that this nutjob had an assault rifle with a 100 round magazine. The only reason even more people aren't dead is because that particular weapon jammed and he had to use his other weapons that couldn't deliver the same level of lethality in such a short period of time.
OAW
He could have done just as much damage with the standard 30 round clip. Swapping them out doesn't take that long and he wasn't in actual combat with people firing back at him.

Do anti-gun people have some threshold I'm not aware of? Is there a certain lethality that a weapon must posses to be targeted for banishment? A gun that can kill X number of people in a minute is bad, but a bow and arrow is ok because it can only kill X minus 10 people in a minute?

At the end of the day, I'm not sure how I feel about 100 round mags and fully automatic weapons. While I can conceive of a sport where they may come in handy, or a legitimate defense of a person or country (speaking in the sense of a militia as intended by the constitution, not our standing army), I think the risk may outweigh those factors. I wouldn't be bothered personally if I was told I could never purchase a 100 round magazine or fully automatic weapon because 1 in a million people are nutjobs. At the same time, it is only 1 in a million so I don't think all guns should be banned because of a few crazies.
AT&T iPhone 5S and 6; 13" MBP; MDD G4.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 12:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by SSharon View Post
Before this line of thought gets too far off topic, keep in mind that I brought up archery for a specific purpose. The claim was that the sole purpose of guns is to kill people and historically that is the same as for archery. Currently, both are used for sport, yet one is still treated much differently than the other (nobody says bows should be banned).
They're treated differently because one type of weapon is still used by the military.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 12:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by SSharon View Post
He could have done just as much damage with the standard 30 round clip. Swapping them out doesn't take that long and he wasn't in actual combat with people firing back at him.
Do anti-gun people have some threshold I'm not aware of? Is there a certain lethality that a weapon must posses to be targeted for banishment? A gun that can kill X number of people in a minute is bad, but a bow and arrow is ok because it can only kill X minus 10 people in a minute?

At the end of the day, I'm not sure how I feel about 100 round mags and fully automatic weapons. While I can conceive of a sport where they may come in handy, or a legitimate defense of a person or country (speaking in the sense of a militia as intended by the constitution, not our standing army), I think the risk may outweigh those factors. I wouldn't be bothered personally if I was told I could never purchase a 100 round magazine or fully automatic weapon because 1 in a million people are nutjobs. At the same time, it is only 1 in a million so I don't think all guns should be banned because of a few crazies.
Again ... I'm not "anti-gun" at all. But I simply don't see any "sport" of "self-defense" need that would require the general public to have anything above a low-capacity magazine. If somebody can't hit Bambi within 10 shots they really should just take their ass home and find a new hobby.

OAW
     
SSharon
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Teaneck, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 12:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
They're treated differently because one type of weapon is still used by the military.
Fair point. That makes sense, but that is also what gets us stuck in a catch 22. People believe our constitution allows individuals to own guns to prevent our military from controlling us so to keep up we arguably need something similar in capabilities. I'm not arguing we should have tanks or fighter jets though.

So hypothetically, if one day the military only uses bombs and lasers do you think guns will be treated as bows are today?

Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Again ... I'm not "anti-gun" at all. But I simply don't see any "sport" of "self-defense" need that would require the general public to have anything above a low-capacity magazine. If somebody can't hit Bambi within 10 shots they really should just take their ass home and find a new hobby.
OAW
Edit because your post wasn't up when I was writing my response to Dakar. As I said to you above, I think I agree with you on this point. There are some weapons and accessories that the public has no reason to own.
AT&T iPhone 5S and 6; 13" MBP; MDD G4.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 12:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by SSharon View Post
People believe our constitution allows individuals to own guns to prevent our military from controlling us so to keep up we arguably need something similar in capabilities.
That's what I don't understand about the argument. The military can lay waste to civilians with ease. How well would Libya have gone for the rebels without international aerial support?

(I also wonder where Syrian rebels got their weapons)



Originally Posted by SSharon View Post
So hypothetically, if one day the military only uses bombs and lasers do you think guns will be treated as bows are today?
Possibly. Depends if people are still hunting in one hundred years. I mean, do people still hunt with spears or knives for sport?

It's also worth noting today's bows (and arrows) are like, soooo much better than bows from a couple hundred years ago, even though it's technically the same weapon. Perhaps in a hundred years people will be using guns equipped with heat-seaking bullets.[/nonotreally]
     
SSharon
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Teaneck, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 01:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
That's what I don't understand about the argument. The military can lay waste to civilians with ease. How well would Libya have gone for the rebels without international aerial support?
(I also wonder where Syrian rebels got their weapons)
Yea, I'm not saying that it is the best argument, I hope that came across correctly. Unfortunately, as someone who enjoys shooting for sport (not for hunting or defense) my only argument to support gun ownership in this country has to come through support of the second amendment.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Possibly. Depends if people are still hunting in one hundred years. I mean, do people still hunt with spears or knives for sport?
It's also worth noting today's bows (and arrows) are like, soooo much better than bows from a couple hundred years ago, even though it's technically the same weapon. Perhaps in a hundred years people will be using guns equipped with heat-seaking bullets.[/nonotreally]
Kind of ironic that today's bows are far more powerful and accurate than bows used to be - making them more lethal - yet because they don't resemble the old bows people don't think of them as being weapons anymore. Maybe a better example would be fireworks since they are kind of like bombs. Some states allow them while others don't and if you take away the colorful sparkles you basically have a mortar filled with black powder. If only (civilian) guns shot rainbows things would be better.
AT&T iPhone 5S and 6; 13" MBP; MDD G4.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 02:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
That's what I don't understand about the argument. The military can lay waste to civilians with ease. How well would Libya have gone for the rebels without international aerial support?
(I also wonder where Syrian rebels got their weapons)
You're looking at this in the wrong direction. The intent wasn't to have civilians who could go toe-to-toe with the military. That wasn't possible back then either, even if the civilians were armed.

The pitched battle is the endgame, that's not how rebellions start. They start with anti-government terrorism, and as we've just seen, you don't need air support to mount an effective terror attack.

That's the starting condition our government must consider before leaning towards the tyrannical: the citizenry has had the right to stockpile the tools of the anti-government terrorist.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2012, 03:43 AM
 
Meanwhile, gun nuts in Norway celebrate their right to own and bear arms upon one year anniversary of the massacre that took 77 lives.

Wait a minute...
ebuddy
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2012, 04:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Tangental question: How come we haven't see a mugshot of the guy? Local laws? Seems like every time a celeb gets a DUI the mugshot is there for everyone the next day but on this, bupkis.
TMZ has posted the mug shot.
4592/width/350/height/700[/IMG]
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2012, 04:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Shouldn't have exiting via the emergency exit set off an alarm?

Originally Posted by OAW View Post
One would think. That has been the part about this that has troubled me from the beginning. How did he open the emergency exit from outside? And how did this happen w/o setting off the alarm?
OAW
The first lawsuit has been filed, and the issue of the emergency exit not being alarmed is #1

http://www.tmz.com/2012/07/24/james-holmes-lawsuit-shooting/
Brown has hired attorney Donald Karpel to rep him. Karpel tells TMZ ... he is targeting 3 defendants.

1. The theater. Karpel claims it was negligent for the theater to have an emergency door in the front that was not alarmed or guarded. It's widely believed Holmes entered the theater with a ticket, propped the emergency door open from inside, went to his car and returned with guns.


2. Holmes' doctors. Karpel says it appears Holmes was on several medications -- prescribed by one or more doctors -- at the time of the shooting and he believes the docs did not properly monitor Holmes.

3. Warner Bros. Karpel says "Dark Knight Rises" was particularly violent and Holmes mimicked some of the action. The attorney says theater goers were helpless because they thought the shooter was part of the movie. Karpel tells TMZ, "Somebody has to be responsible for the rampant violence that is shown today."
     
SSharon
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Teaneck, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2012, 05:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
The first lawsuit has been filed, and the issue of the emergency exit not being alarmed is #1
I'm ok with suits number 1 and number 2 (against the theater and the doctors), but against Warner Bros.? Seriously? Are they going to claim the killer downloaded DKR months ago and that's how he mimicked it?
AT&T iPhone 5S and 6; 13" MBP; MDD G4.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2012, 05:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by SSharon View Post
Yea, I'm not saying that it is the best argument, I hope that came across correctly. Unfortunately, as someone who enjoys shooting for sport (not for hunting or defense) my only argument to support gun ownership in this country has to come through support of the second amendment.
Don't misunderstand, I'm not arguing against the second amendment here. At least, not intentionally.


Originally Posted by SSharon View Post
Kind of ironic that today's bows are far more powerful and accurate than bows used to be - making them more lethal - yet because they don't resemble the old bows people don't think of them as being weapons anymore.
I think people don't consider them viable weapons because guns would do the job much more efficiently. However, they are considered weapons (that's how you kill, right?), and their ability to kill is acknowledged in that they must be handled properly as well.


Originally Posted by SSharon View Post
Maybe a better example would be fireworks since they are kind of like bombs. Some states allow them while others don't and if you take away the colorful sparkles you basically have a mortar filled with black powder. If only (civilian) guns shot rainbows things would be better.
...and it's worth noting every year we still have idiots that blow off their hands and fingers.



Originally Posted by subego View Post
You're looking at this in the wrong direction. The intent wasn't to have civilians who could go toe-to-toe with the military. That wasn't possible back then either, even if the civilians were armed.
The pitched battle is the endgame, that's not how rebellions start. They start with anti-government terrorism, and as we've just seen, you don't need air support to mount an effective terror attack.
That's the starting condition our government must consider before leaning towards the tyrannical: the citizenry has had the right to stockpile the tools of the anti-government terrorist.
I'm not following. They can't finish what they start. So what happens once the government decides to go tyrannical?




Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
TMZ has posted the mug shot.
4592/width/350/height/700[/IMG]
Yeah, after everyone saw him in the courtroom. (Awesome hair, BTW)




Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
The first lawsuit has been filed, and the issue of the emergency exit not being alarmed is #1
http://www.tmz.com/2012/07/24/james-holmes-lawsuit-shooting/
This lawyer sounds like a piece of shit.
     
osiris
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2012, 06:17 AM
 
perhaps he anticipated the matching uniform.
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
     
chabig
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2012, 11:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
But I simply don't see any "sport" of "self-defense" need that would require the general public to have anything above a low-capacity magazine.
But why should society be allowed to decide what we "need" or "require"? Does anyone "need" more than 300 horsepower in their car? Does anyone "need" a boat or a motorcycle? (Think how many lives we would save by banning motorcycles). Let's put a weight limit on automobiles, and ban large soft drinks while we're at it. Nobody "needs" 24 ounces of sugar water.

I take my gun to the range and shoot at paper targets. What if I want to practice shooting instead of reloading? Why should someone else tell me how much capacity my magazine (they are not "clips") can have?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2012, 11:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by chabig View Post
But why should society be allowed to decide what we "need" or "require"?
Because you live within it.

Aren't most laws decided by what society accepts? Here in the US most of society accepts the second amendment to some degree and therefore rights it entails.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2012, 11:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I'm not following. They can't finish what they start. So what happens if the government starts to go tyrannical?
Assuming there's a tyrant involved, you shoot them.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2012, 11:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Assuming there's a tyrant involved, you shoot them.
C'mon, man. There tends to be a middle to this story where the actual struggle occurs.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2012, 12:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
C'mon, man. There tends to be a middle to this story where the actual struggle occurs.
Struggle for what?

It's usually the struggle to set up a scenario where you can kill them after they've spent decades stacking the military with loyalists and operating a massive secret police network.


If you want to take the Second Amendment to its conclusion, it is saying "citizens have the right to bear the tools with which they can assassinate their leaders".

Is it possible for a tyrant to operate under that condition?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2012, 12:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Struggle for what?
It's usually the struggle to set up a scenario where you can kill them after they've spent decades stacking the military with loyalists and operating a massive secret police network.

If you want to take the Second Amendment to its conclusion, it is saying "citizens have the right to bear the tools with which they can assassinate their leaders".
Is it possible for a tyrant to operate under that condition?
So basically the second amendment is mutually assured destruction?

I just don't see it. The would-be tyrant president still has a security detail and likely military protection. No civilian is going to assassinate him with ease. If armed protest occurs two things will happen: The military violently puts it down or the military sides with the citizenry.

I feel like we saw this happen in Egypt last year.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2012, 01:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
So basically the second amendment is mutually assured destruction?
It ensures the citizenry has teeth in case of tyrannical leadership, among other things.

I just don't see it. The would-be tyrant president still has a security detail and likely military protection. No civilian is going to assassinate him with ease. If armed protest occurs two things will happen: The military violently puts it down or the military sides with the citizenry.
I feel like we saw this happen in Egypt last year.
Who said anything about assassinate with ease? Syria would be a better example. The regime is losing that war despite being armed by a superpower (russia) and until recently suffering few military defections.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2012, 01:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I just don't see it. The would-be tyrant president still has a security detail and likely military protection. No civilian is going to assassinate him with ease.
Is the question whether it's with ease, or would it be better to ask how much easier does it make it?

Assuming the second, pretty much any citizen can get their hands on a sniper rifle. Does that not make it significantly easier?
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2012, 02:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by chabig View Post
I take my gun to the range and shoot at paper targets. What if I want to practice shooting instead of reloading? Why should someone else tell me how much capacity my magazine (they are not "clips") can have?
Because the price we pay for living in a civilized society means that sometimes we have to subordinate our individuals desires to the common good. The question then becomes, where is that line drawn? In this particular instance, at what point does a magazine capacity restriction in the name of public safety unduly infringe upon an individual's right to keep and bear arms? Well as I stated earlier .... I think a 10 round magazine for the general public strikes the right balance. More than enough to hunt. More than enough for self-defense. And to your point about not wanting to have to frequently reload while target shooting ... I think an reasonable accommodation would be to allow higher capacity magazines to be purchased for use at the range only.

OAW
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2012, 04:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by chabig View Post
But why should society be allowed to decide what we "need" or "require"? Does anyone "need" more than 300 horsepower in their car? Does anyone "need" a boat or a motorcycle? (Think how many lives we would save by banning motorcycles). Let's put a weight limit on automobiles, and ban large soft drinks while we're at it. Nobody "needs" 24 ounces of sugar water.
I take my gun to the range and shoot at paper targets. What if I want to practice shooting instead of reloading? Why should someone else tell me how much capacity my magazine (they are not "clips") can have?
This path leads to anarchy.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
finboy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2012, 04:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
We should all bear in mind that this nutjob had an assault rifle with a 100 round magazine. The only reason even more people aren't dead is because that particular weapon jammed and he had to use his other weapons that couldn't deliver the same level of lethality in such a short period of time.
OAW
Drums magazines are notoriously unreliable, even for professionals. If he wanted to kill the most people in the shortest time he should have used gasoline or one of his homemade bombs (sophisticated enough to tie up the BATFE for hours and hours, evidently). Instead, this was about killing just enough people to get infamous.

It worked! And the media continues to help him every day.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2012, 06:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post

If people are carrying guns around, more people will get shot.
Actually, not true. FBI crime statistics show that even though gun ownership has increased many fold in the last four decades, actual homicides, and the rate, have gone down significantly.

People lose their tempers, if they have a gun on their person, they are much more likely to shoot someone than if they have to go home and retrieve it from a gun safe. People drink and take drugs and then drive cars. Do you honestly think they don't do the same while carrying their gun? Are they going to say "I just have to run home and put my gun away before I can have a beer with you"? I don't think they are.
Pure speculation. You're picking on a small minority, in either case, and attempting to extrapolate it out to include everyone. The vast majority of gun owners, especially the ones who carry, are very cognizant of their responsibilities, and the laws which allow them to carry. Once again, gun ownership has grown exponentially in the last few decades (Black Friday of last year, as an example, set a record for background checks, at over 120,000 in one day, from gun shops), yet the homicide rate and number keeps declining.

Do carry licenses get revoked if you are caught carrying a gun under the influence?
Yes, as they should, and most carry permit holders are very cognizant of that fact.

I at least have the decency to weigh my position against practicality and to acknowledge the shades of grey.
You might want to believe that, but just your constant use of the term "gun nuts," show how impartial you really are.

I don't believe America can just implement UK style gun control laws all of a sudden even if they wanted to. It wouldn't work because there are too many guns in the wild already. It also doesn't change the mindset that keeps guns and wars so popular with americans or address the reasons that some of them get unhappy or unstable enough to go on these rampages. Gun nuts see this as a black and white issue and just say "guns don't kill people..." If only it were that simple.
As a matter of practicality, when regarding the vast majority of gun owners, who number about 80 million Americans, and who own approximately 300 million firearms, it is that simple. The incident we're discussing here is still an anomaly, and will always be one, and has little to do with the availability of guns, but more to do with the mindset of a few individuals, who have been amongst us since day one.

Interesting article on the difference between us "gun nuts" and the type of individual that commits these heinous acts. http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/colorado-shootings-add-chapter-to-long-unpredictable-story-of-us-mass-murder/2012/07/24/gJQAK6Xe7W_story.html?hpid=z3

"The United States is a less violent country than it was two decades ago. The homicide rate, which hit a peak in the early 1990s at about 10 per 100,000 people, has been cut in half, to a level not seen since the early 1960s." (This is despite the much easier process of procuring a gun, and comes from a time when only a few states allowed their citizens to carry a gun, where all but one now do, in some manner).

"The statistics on mass murder suggest it is a phenomenon that does not track with other types of violent crime, such as street violence. It does not seem to be affected by the economy or by law enforcement strategies.." (Nothing to do with "gun nuts")

Despite your protestations that you're not labeling all gun owners as "gun nuts," it's quite transparent that you're not being truthful, when you introduce claims that gun owners are easier to rile in adverse situation than others, by making statements suggesting they more readily disobey the rules under which they're permitted to own or carry weapons. To responsible gun owners, which is the vast majority of them, it appears that you're flailing your arms wildly, in the hopes that will somehow make your "points" seem more valid. It doesn't.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2012, 07:19 PM
 
one thing is true...

the next one is out there....and he has a credit card

how do we stop him from getting guns?
     
hyteckit  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2012, 09:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by chabig View Post
But why should society be allowed to decide what we "need" or "require"? Does anyone "need" more than 300 horsepower in their car? Does anyone "need" a boat or a motorcycle? (Think how many lives we would save by banning motorcycles). Let's put a weight limit on automobiles, and ban large soft drinks while we're at it. Nobody "needs" 24 ounces of sugar water.
I take my gun to the range and shoot at paper targets. What if I want to practice shooting instead of reloading? Why should someone else tell me how much capacity my magazine (they are not "clips") can have?
See. Here's an example of the entitlement mentality.

There is no need for a 100 round magazine clip, but I should be entitled to it because I want it. Forget about the general safety of others.


Well. Then I want a tank armed with a turret and a gatling gun with 5000 rounds of ammo. It's for transportation and sports.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2012, 02:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
You might want to believe that, but just your constant use of the term "gun nuts," show how impartial you really are.
You're using it pretty much as often as I am and fixating on it to try and make me look less reasonable. Do you deny that gun nuts exist at all? That should be my inference of your opinion since you have assumed that I apply the definition to all gun owners despite my saying different. Or do you simply find the term offensive and prefer 'firearm enthusiast' or 'firearm obsessive' instead.

Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
"The statistics on mass murder suggest it is a phenomenon that does not track with other types of violent crime, such as street violence. It does not seem to be affected by the economy or by law enforcement strategies.." (Nothing to do with "gun nuts")
I don't see how that quote contains anything that would exonerate gun nuts, by my actual definition or by the one you are continuing to impose on me.


Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
Despite your protestations that you're not labeling all gun owners as "gun nuts," it's quite transparent that you're not being truthful, when you introduce claims that gun owners are easier to rile in adverse situation than others, by making statements suggesting they more readily disobey the rules under which they're permitted to own or carry weapons. To responsible gun owners, which is the vast majority of them, it appears that you're flailing your arms wildly, in the hopes that will somehow make your "points" seem more valid. It doesn't.
Your post was at least trying to appear reasonable until you got to this last part. Now you seem to have dropped to the level of "I can't argue with you when you are being reasonable so I'm going to call you a liar and argue with what I think you really believe."
Please stop trying to put words and opinions in my mouth. I never claimed that gun owners were any more or less likely to do anything other than shoot people. Someone with a gun in their pocket is more likely to shoot someone than someone who doesn't have a gun at all. There is simply no way any reasonable sane person can dispute that fact.
I was attempting to give examples of what I meant. Say this responsible gun owner catches his or her spouse cheating. Or if someone hits their child with a car. Sometimes perfectly calm and responsible people are provoked to lash out, all I'm saying is that if you have a gun, you might lash out with that, if you don't, you can't.
Drinking and driving is again the law but it is common place. You really think that all licensed are gun carriers don't drink when carrying? This seems naive.

Its all very well citing falling crime stats and increased gun ownership but there could well be other factors in play. Its impossible to state with any certainty that those crime rates wouldn't be even lower with less guns wandering about.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
hyteckit  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2012, 02:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
You don't have to have guns to fulfill a powertrip, there are people in Europe running into daycare centers hacking people apart with cleavers. You believe that if the weapons he had were illegal to own that this would have been averted, and that couldn't be further from the truth. Buying said weapons and ammo on the black market is too easy, given how much is out there. Plus, when they're bought through illegal channels the federal and state governments have no hope of tracking them at all. Prohibition didn't work, the "War on drugs" is a failure, and trying to ban firearms would be a disaster.
You keep diverting the argument away from the FACT that he did use guns to kill people in the movie theater.


Could he have used explosive instead of guns to kill people in the movie theater? Yes.

However, he did use guns instead of explosives. How can you argue against this FACT?


I was expressing my opinion on why he choose to use guns instead of someone other than guns, like explosives.


If you disagree with my opinion, why do you think he chose to use guns?
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2012, 06:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Is the question whether it's with ease, or would it be better to ask how much easier does it make it?

Assuming the second, pretty much any citizen can get their hands on a sniper rifle. Does that not make it significantly easier?
If it was I feel like we'd have seen some politician assassinated by that method recently.



Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
It ensures the citizenry has teeth in case of tyrannical leadership, among other things.
Teeth don't work on everything.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Who said anything about assassinate with ease? Syria would be a better example. The regime is losing that war despite being armed by a superpower (russia) and until recently suffering few military defections.
Did Syrians have something akin to 2nd amendment rights?



Originally Posted by finboy View Post
Drums magazines are notoriously unreliable, even for professionals. If he wanted to kill the most people in the shortest time he should have used gasoline or one of his homemade bombs (sophisticated enough to tie up the BATFE for hours and hours, evidently). Instead, this was about killing just enough people to get infamous.
Admittedly speaking out of my ass here, but I have to think gun sprees are committed the way they are because the killer seeks the feeling given which I don't believe is akin to using gasoline to burn or homemade bombs. Killing with a gun you get visceral feedback on every trigger pull and a strong feeling of control, as opposed to the less predictable chaos of, say, setting fire with gasoline.



Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
one thing is true...
the next one is out there....and he has a credit card
how do we stop him from getting guns?
Make credit harder to get.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:44 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,