Jump to content

14 dead, 50 injured by lone gunman in Batman premiere in Colorado


big_dish

Recommended Posts

Holme's parents were not considered wealthy but well above what is required for most kids to receive grant money for college. The money spent on his education could have been spent on a more deserving kid. No hind sight required on this one. I put one of my kids through on a military paycheck and I can guarantee that Holme's parents defintely made more. Mine were turned down for the grants and this freaking nutjob received 26 thousand ? What gives ? Do these people not look into what the parents receive ? Am I the only one that also thinks that this kid would not have been in the apartment which was an area for students from the university had it not been for a grant that he obviously did not deserve ? Am I missing something ? Oh, one last thing.... How much of this grant was actually applied towards school and how much of it was applied towards means of violence ? Seeing as how he quote unquote did not have a job. Is there a need for futher control on Goverment Grant Money also ?

[url="http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/07/24/james-holmes-received-26k-grant-from-bethesda-based-national-institutes-of-health/"]http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/07/24/james-holmes-received-26k-grant-from-bethesda-based-national-institutes-of-health/[/url]

[b]James Holmes Received $26K Grant From Bethesda-Based National Institutes of Health[/b]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Numbers' timestamp='1343171202' post='1140505']
Holme's parents were not considered wealthy but well above what is required for most kids to receive grant money for college. The money spent on his education could have been spent on a more deserving kid. No hind sight required on this one. I put one of my kids through on a military paycheck and I can guarantee that Holme's parents defintely made more. Mine were turned down for the grants and this freaking nutjob received 26 thousand ? What gives ? Do these people not look into what the parents receive ? Am I the only one that also thinks that this kid would not have been in the apartment which was an area for students from the university had it not been for a grant that he obviously did not deserve ? Am I missing something ? Oh, one last thing.... How much of this grant was actually applied towards school and how much of it was applied towards means of violence ? Seeing as how he quote unquote did not have a job. Is there a need for futher control on Goverment Grant Money also ?

[url="http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/07/24/james-holmes-received-26k-grant-from-bethesda-based-national-institutes-of-health/"]http://washington.cb...utes-of-health/[/url]

[b]James Holmes Received $26K Grant From Bethesda-Based National Institutes of Health[/b]
[/quote]

Oh please...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a stipend, Numbers. Grad school is quite different from undergrad studies in this respect: promising students are often paid to attend an institution via assistantships or fellowships. In this sense, funding is not necessarily need-based, but rather based on potential.

As for the rest: While I understand the general desire to be non-political at moments like this, in my opinion, it is precisely moments like this which ought to provoke one to be more closely attentive to the overall social environment which provokes these tragedies. In a sane society, policy adjustments are generally considered when stuff like this happens. I mean, it's not like on December 8th, 1941, FDR came out and said, "Oh, how sad. We'll talk about the political implications later."

In reading through various commentaries subsequent to this event, I came across the term "amok" a couple of times. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Running_amok"]Enough to make me look it up[/url], as the claims being made by those authors seemed possibly relevant. Particularly relevant are these brief sections:

[quote][b][color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][size=4]Contemporary syndrome[/size][/font][/color][/b]
[color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=4][size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]"Running amok" is used to refer to the behavior of someone who, in the grip of strong emotion, obtains a weapon and begins attacking people indiscriminately, often with multiple fatalities. The slang term [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Going_postal"]going postal[/url] is similar in scope. Police describe such an event as a [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spree_killer"]killing spree[/url]. If the individual is seeking death an alternate method is often [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop"]suicide by cop[/url].[/font][/size][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=4][b][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][size=4]Officially classified as a psychiatric condition[/size][/font][/b][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Amok is often described as a culture-bound (or culture-specific) syndrome, which is a psychological condition whose manifestation is strongly shaped by cultural factors. Other reported culture-bound syndromes are [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latah"]latah[/url] and [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis_panic"]koro[/url]. Amok is also sometimes considered one of the subcategories of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_disorders"]dissociative disorders[/url] (cross-cultural variant).[/font][/size][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][size=4]Amok was officially classified as a psychiatric condition in 1849 based on the numerous reports and case studies which showed that the majority of individuals who committed amok were, in some sense, mentally ill. However, DSM-IV-TR does not break amok down into two official categories. The two forms are; beramok and amok. Beramok is considered to be the more common of the two and is associated with the depression and sadness resulting from a loss and the subsequent brooding process. Loss includes the death of a spouse or loved one, divorce, loss of a job, money, power, etc. Beramok is associated with mental issues of severe depression or other mood disorders. Amok, the rarer form, is believed to stem from rage, insult, or a vendetta against a person or society for a wide variety of reasons. Amok has been more closely associated with psychosis, personality disorders, bipolar disorder, and delusions.[/size][/font][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][/quote][/size][/font][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=sans-serif][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][size=4]It seems to me that if the claims that Holmes "ran amok" resonate with people, it is probably because we all pretty much know that our society is fucked up in a number of ways. So, it isn't enough just to say that "the guy is crazy" and allow people to draw the inference that there are/were no external factors in our social environment that drive unstable folks to this kind of desperate act. And sadly, [url="http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/major-shootings.pdf"]this kind of act is much more common than folks realize.[/url] (Warning: link is a .pdf listing a 62 page catalog of such events, just since 2005.) [/size][/font][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][size=4]We live in a violent society. We have chosen to embrace that violence through our political behavior. All the wondering as to why no one jumped up and popped a cap or two to stop this guy reaffirms our attachment to violence as a solution. And yet, there are reports that two or three people died in this incident protecting their loved ones. That, at least in my eyes, is more potently heroic than all these fantasies about how we failed to go "Steve McQueen" or Charles Bronson" on the guy while the bullets were flying.[/size][/font][/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font=sans-serif]It [i]is[/i] "Cowboy Justice" that we value. That's the sad truth of matters and so, events like this come under the category of "cowboy gone bad." It's an old meme in our culture and not likely to change any time soon. And also sadly, formal legalities have little to do with this base and banal evocation of justice in our society. Earlier in this thread, [url="http://forum.go-bengals.com/index.php?showtopic=64945&#entry1139889"]one CCW stalwart makes this very clear[/url]. Note the implied extra-legal arrogation of a certain kind of "justice" in reference to whether or not one ought to follow the rules regarding places that prohibit carrying concealed weapons.[/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font=sans-serif]We reap what we sow and sometimes what we sow is bad seed.[/font][/color]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure that the "screening process" for people that fit this kind of degree is ever going to catch a psychopath like this. The guy was a good student, and by all accounts a good guy too. He washed out of the pre-med program for whatever reason and the rest is history. There is no doubt in my mind that his academic failures helped trigger this due to the competitive environment he was in....and once eliminated from that for whatever reason, decided to take vengeance upon innocent people. What sucks is that the guy from his mug shot looks like a goober that anyone could have kicked his ass....until he's armed with body armor and unleashing multiple rounds from a machine gun against innocent, unsuspecting people,

With nobody even trying to stop it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that this certainly falls under the category of crazy guy thta would be tough to stop situation....and you can't really blame anyone....but doesn't this seem to be happening more and more? Chadron, Va Tech, Arizona, guy in what was it Denmark? so on and so forth?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It bothers the shit out of me that this turned into another gun control debate. Whether you think this could have been prevented by a CCW or more restrictive laws, the gun issue is irrelevant.

Guns are a scapegoat, like everything is scapegoated in modern America. People don't care about the real reason for a tragedy like this - mental instability combined with the lack of any treatment or support for it. It's far easier to get self righteous and squawk about TOUGHER GUN LAWS or MORE CCWS. Neither viewpoint is going to change the status quo. Sure, it's highly doubtful anyone else is going to be able to buy 6000 rounds of ammo over the Internet. But this guy didn't use nearly that much. The VT shooter caused far more human destruction with handguns alone.

I know it's a lot harder to get self righteous over mental health, but that's where the blame lies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1343230682' post='1140639']
It bothers the shit out of me that this turned into another gun control debate. Whether you think this could have been prevented by a CCW or more restrictive laws, the gun issue is irrelevant.

Guns are a scapegoat, like everything is scapegoated in modern America. People don't care about the real reason for a tragedy like this - mental instability combined with the lack of any treatment or support for it. It's far easier to get self righteous and squawk about TOUGHER GUN LAWS or MORE CCWS. Neither viewpoint is going to change the status quo. Sure, it's highly doubtful anyone else is going to be able to buy 6000 rounds of ammo over the Internet. But this guy didn't use nearly that much. The VT shooter caused far more human destruction with handguns alone.

I know it's a lot harder to get self righteous over mental health, but that's where the blame lies.
[/quote]

How so? I have not heard much about him having mental health problems or having been in "the system"? Are you saying that you blame his mental health issues more then guns? Or the mental health system more then guns?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='MichaelWeston' timestamp='1343232509' post='1140644']


How so? I have not heard much about him having mental health problems or having been in "the system"? Are you saying that you blame his mental health issues more then guns? Or the mental health system more then guns?
[/quote]

Both. The fact that he is obviously deranged, and that nobody around him noticed, or cared to notice, is the root cause. Shooting up the theater was the end result of a long mental process.

The man was going to hurt people regardless of what access he had to weapons. Blaming the instrument of his destruction is missing the real issue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1343236251' post='1140650']
Both. The fact that he is obviously deranged, and that nobody around him noticed, or cared to notice, is the root cause. Shooting up the theater was the end result of a long mental process.

The man was going to hurt people regardless of what access he had to weapons. Blaming the instrument of his destruction is missing the real issue.
[/quote]

In the case of the VT shooter, there were warnings regarding his mental capacity. He was ordered to undergo a psychiatric assessment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1343236251' post='1140650']
Both. The fact that he is obviously deranged, and that nobody around him noticed, or cared to notice, is the root cause. Shooting up the theater was the end result of a long mental process.

The man was going to hurt people regardless of what access he had to weapons. [b]Blaming the instrument of his destruction is missing the real issue.[/b]
[/quote]

Speaking for myself, I'm not blaming access to assault rifles ect. for this tragedy. But its foolish to not highlight that this is yet another data point that proves access to these instruments of war is completely unnecessary.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1343236546' post='1140653']


In the case of the VT shooter, there were warnings regarding his mental capacity. He was ordered to undergo a psychiatric assessment.
[/quote]

And in that case the gun control argument was valid, because he was only able to purchase the guns due to a loophole wherein Virginia authorities were not notified of his previous mental history.

I don't have a solution to picking out murderous psychopaths before they snap (probably because there isn't a universal one). Just making the point here that the gun debate is irrelevant. Would more or less people have died if he didnt have an AR-15? Maybe, or maybe he just would have kept on firing off the shotgun (which is a legitimate hunting weapon).

I am a firm supporter of the right to purchase and bear arms, but I also don't think anybody carrying in the theater would have made a difference.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1343236898' post='1140655']
And in that case the gun control argument was valid, because he was only able to purchase the guns due to a loophole wherein Virginia authorities were not notified of his previous mental history.

I don't have a solution to picking out murderous psychopaths before they snap (probably because there isn't a universal one). Just making the point here that the gun debate is irrelevant. Would more or less people have died if he didnt have an AR-15? Maybe, or maybe he just would have kept on firing off the shotgun (which is a legitimate hunting weapon).

I am a firm supporter of the right to purchase and bear arms, but I also don't think anybody carrying in the theater would have made a difference.
[/quote]

Sorry I was under the impression you thought that the VT shooter didn't have any mental health treatment. He was ordered outpatient treatment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Squirrlnutz' timestamp='1343236788' post='1140654']


Speaking for myself, I'm not blaming access to assault rifles ect. for this tragedy. But its foolish to not highlight that this is yet another data point that proves access to these instruments of war is completely unnecessary.
[/quote]

It only proves what's already known - people can snap and hurt others. I don't have a problem with people owning high powered weapons. There are millions of them owned by millions of responsible people. You can't argue that he would have caused more or less destruction based on what weapons or equipment he had - that's pure speculation. Cho killed 30 people with handguns that are carried by millions daily. Al-Qaeda took down the twin towers with box cutters. The rifle is a scapegoat for a culture that thrives on blaming icons instead of itself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1343237305' post='1140658']
It only proves what's already known - people can snap and hurt others. I don't have a problem with people owning high powered weapons. There are millions of them owned by millions of responsible people. You can't argue that he would have caused more or less destruction based on what weapons or equipment he had - that's pure speculation. Cho killed 30 people with handguns that are carried by millions daily. Al-Qaeda took down the twin towers with box cutters. The rifle is a scapegoat for a culture that thrives on blaming icons instead of itself.
[/quote]

Disagree. Like I asked before, what are the benefits? I only see negatives.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Squirrlnutz' timestamp='1343237636' post='1140661']


Disagree. Like I asked before, what are the benefits? I only see negatives.
[/quote]

A rifle is an enthusiast item, not a practical one. What are the negatives - a crazy person may buy one and use it to shoot someone? That logic leads down a dangerous path.

For the other millions of non crazy rifle owners, I'd say the benefit is having a cool rifle to shoot stuff with. I'm not implying that this is a direct trade off (lives for coolness) because this is an isolated event.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1343236898' post='1140655']
And in that case the gun control argument was valid, because he was only able to purchase the guns due to a loophole wherein Virginia authorities were not notified of his previous mental history.

I don't have a solution to picking out murderous psychopaths before they snap (probably because there isn't a universal one). Just making the point here that the gun debate is irrelevant. Would more or less people have died if he didnt have an AR-15? Maybe, or maybe he just would have kept on firing off the shotgun (which is a legitimate hunting weapon).

I am a firm supporter of the right to purchase and bear arms, but I also don't think anybody carrying in the theater would have made a difference.
[/quote]

Guns allow psycopaths to kill more easily. Guns are certainly not off the hook here. He was not going to hurt that many people with a sling shot or a knife.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1343237305' post='1140658']
It only proves what's already known - people can snap and hurt others. I don't have a problem with people owning high powered weapons. There are millions of them owned by millions of responsible people. You can't argue that he would have caused more or less destruction based on what weapons or equipment he had - that's pure speculation. Cho killed 30 people with handguns that are carried by millions daily. Al-Qaeda took down the twin towers with box cutters. The rifle is a scapegoat for a culture that thrives on blaming icons instead of itself.
[/quote]

How should the culture blame itself. I think I agree but I am not sure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1343238268' post='1140663']
A rifle is an enthusiast item, not a practical one. What are the negatives - a crazy person may buy one and use it to shoot someone? That logic leads down a dangerous path.[/quote]

Yes, that would be the negative. I'd say it's a pretty significant one. The idea that it's this slippery slope that ultimately leads to banning scissors & hammers is ridiculous. Scissors and hammers serve a purpose. Whereas your assault rifle?

[quote]the benefit is having a cool rifle to shoot stuff with. [/quote]

That's really not much of a benefit, in the grand scheme of things.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Squirrlnutz' timestamp='1343237636' post='1140661']
Disagree. Like I asked before, what are the benefits? I only see negatives.
[/quote]

One day, God forbid someone breaks into your house and you don't have a gun to defend yourself or your property, and something happens to you and your family, then come see me and tell me you don't think citizens should be allowed to carry guns.

What if the country someday gets to the point of Marshall Law and you have to actually defend yourself against the government?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='MichaelWeston' timestamp='1343242347' post='1140671']
Guns allow psycopaths to kill more easily. Guns are certainly not off the hook here. He was not going to hurt that many people with a sling shot or a knife.
[/quote]

Nope but a truck bomb like Timothy McVeigh made would have killed more...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...