Jump to content

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


big_dish

Recommended Posts

[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]
[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]
[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]
[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1343281586' post='1140854']
Nope but a truck bomb like Timothy McVeigh made would have killed more...
[/quote]

+1 to all these...

Once his mind is made up... the means is just one more thing he works out. And, there are a multitude of options that would have accomplished the same task, frankly, much cheaper than what it cost him here. And, very possibly, with greater loss of life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1343281522' post='1140853']
What if the country someday gets to the point of Marshall Law and you have to actually defend yourself against the government?
[/quote]

You plan on defending yourself against Jet fighters and Tanks, ect?

Good luck with that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1343281586' post='1140854']
Nope but a truck bomb like Timothy McVeigh made would have killed more...
[/quote]

And would have been much more elaborate and planned out. He could have also installed poison into the butter machine at the theatre as well.

You dont need a semi automatiuc weapon to defend yourself. You dont need a semiautomatic weapon for anything but to defend yourself from someone with a semi automatic weapon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1343281522' post='1140853']
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?
[/quote]

Reading comprehension not your thing or did you only start reading at my last post because I made it VERY CLEAR that I'm all for the right to bear arms in my previous post. I just believe that one can defend their home without an assualt rifle or a 30 round magazine for a hand gun. The more dangerous weapons of combat need only be sold to those who do combat.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Squirrlnutz' timestamp='1343308098' post='1140875']


Reading comprehension not your thing or did you only start reading at my last post because I made it VERY CLEAR that I'm all for the right to bear arms in my previous post. I just believe that one can defend their home without an assualt rifle or a 30 round magazine for a hand gun. The more dangerous weapons of combat need only be sold to those who do combat.
[/quote]

+1000 to that. We don't need assault rifles and high capacity magazines available. PERIOD. My 16 gauge pump holds 5, my 38 holds 6, my 9 holds 10, and mommies 12 gauge double holds 2. If I can't go hunting or get some intruder out of my house with that, sorry about my luck. I don't know how many of you hunt, but, I've never needed thirty shots to take down a deer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1343281522' post='1140853']
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?
[/quote]

i dont have a problem with people keeping guns in their house, but I've often questioned the effectiveness of this type of defense system

If someone's breaking into your house, armed, with the intention of killing the owner, there's not too much you're going to do about it unless you keep that bad boy strapped to your chest while you sleep. They're going to come right in, find you, and shoot your ass in bed. I can't see them knocking on the door and making sure you're ready first.

If someone's breaking into your house with the intentions of stealing your shit then I dont really see how your odds of survival are higher with a gun. Maybe he shoots you when he see's you have a weapon, maybe you dont incapacitate him with your shot and he returns fire. Maybe he was never going to kill you in the first place. I doubt theres a way to accurately compile a "percentage chance of survining an armed home intrusion with and without owning a weapon" report but I'd be very curious to find out exactly how much safer keeping a gun in your home actually makes you.

I just dont think its the 100% effective home safety mechanism its portreyed as. I dont really see how its more effective than, say, martial arts training and an alarm system.

And i know my future kids wont shoot their future friends in their hypothetical heads with my hypothetical martial arts training and alarm system.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='mullichicken25' timestamp='1343318869' post='1140895']
i dont have a problem with people keeping guns in their house, but I've often questioned the effectiveness of this type of defense system

If someone's breaking into your house, armed, with the intention of killing the owner, there's not too much you're going to do about it unless you keep that bad boy strapped to your chest while you sleep. They're going to come right in, find you, and shoot your ass in bed. I can't see them knocking on the door and making sure you're ready first.

If someone's breaking into your house with the intentions of stealing your shit then I dont really see how your odds of survival are higher with a gun. Maybe he shoots you when he see's you have a weapon, maybe you dont incapacitate him with your shot and he returns fire. Maybe he was never going to kill you in the first place. I doubt theres a way to accurately compile a "percentage chance of survining an armed home intrusion with and without owning a weapon" report but I'd be very curious to find out exactly how much safer keeping a gun in your home actually makes you.

I just dont think its the 100% effective home safety mechanism its portreyed as. I dont really see how its more effective than, say, martial arts training and an alarm system.

And i know my future kids wont shoot their future friends in their hypothetical heads with my hypothetical martial arts training and alarm system.
[/quote]

Sure all of that could be true, but I'd rather take 1% chance of defending myself with a gun, than 0% chance of defending myself with a 9 iron.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='MichaelWeston' timestamp='1343307941' post='1140872']
coocoo
[/quote]

Really? You don't see the possibility of someday there being a break down in American society? It happens all over the world, and someday it could be at your doorstep. It's the backbone of the Second Amendment, and was put in place as protection for citizens against the tyranny of government. At the time it was against the British, yet it has never been taken out of the Constitution, but instead only debated and translated by the Judicial System. The day citizens are no longer able to bear arms and defend themselves and their property, will be the day that the United States is no longer a Democracy and instead a Dictatorship. Don't be so naive, nor so narrow minded.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1343319478' post='1140897']
Really? You don't see the possibility of someday there being a break down in American society? It happens all over the world, and someday it could be at your doorstep. It's the backbone of the Second Amendment, and was put in place as protection for citizens against the tyranny of government. At the time it was against the British, yet it has never been taken out of the Constitution, but instead only debated and translated by the Judicial System. The day citizens are no longer able to bear arms and defend themselves and their property, will be the day that the United States is no longer a Democracy and instead a Dictatorship. Don't be so naive, nor so narrow minded.
[/quote]

I completely agree with you regarding why the 2nd amendment exists, but again would say it's you being naive to the idea that you could defend yourself with these kinds of firearms against tanks and jet fighters. In the days of the founders the firearms that existed were crude in comparison to what we have today.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Fulcher_33' timestamp='1342832031' post='1139953']
To be totally honest, now that I sit back and REALLY think about it, instead of stricter gun laws I'd like to see people learn to treat others with a little more respect. That alone would drop the crime rate down a hundred fold. I do believe the old NRA saying that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" and America is a fucking cesspool when it comes to respecting your fellow man. That is an entirely different argument though.
MULLY[/quote]

Gave this alot of thought. Changing the culture is the only true way. IMHO, I can see the guns go away to an extent but the problem will remain with about the same amount of violent crimes. We will always find a way to hurt one another.

I read an article that stirred the thought process and here it is in its entirety.

[url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-smiler/colorado-theater-shooting-_b_1690942.html"]http://www.huffingto..._b_1690942.html[/url]

[quote] [b]Men and Mass Shootings [/b]

On Friday morning, we woke up to the horrible news that a gunman had opened fire during a midnight movie in a Colorado theatre. By mid-morning, a suspect had been named: James Holmes. A man.

He joins a dubious list: Jared Lee Loughner (Rep. Gabrielle Giffords), Major Midal Malik Hasan (Fort Hood), Seung-Hio Cho (Virginia Tech), and Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (Columbine). Male, all of them. In fact, almost all mass killers have been male.

Federal statistics tell us that about 90 percent of homicides are committed by men. And about 75 percent of homicide victims are men.
I want to be clear: most men are not killers, even though most killers are men. Killers are a very small percentage of the population.

Statistically, being male "increases the odds" that an individual could become a killer (or a victim, for that matter).[b] I t[b]hink s[/b]ome of our cultural expectations for boys and men contribute to this change in the odds. [/b]They're not the only things, but as the TV detectives say, they're an important part of the killer's profile.

We teach men to do, to act, to solve problems. It's not enough to identify the problem; a guy should do something about it.
We teach men to not ask for help. Men who need help -- whether it's an "obvious" problem or something that he should be able to handle by himself or even just help on a regular basis - are told to "man up." Coupled with our encouragement to act, this means that when a guy only has one solution, he's going to try it -- even if it's not a good solution.

We teach men they should not express their feelings. "Boys don't cry," we tell them. That doesn't prevent men from having these feelings; it just encourages them to minimize or ignore them. Because they're not supposed to ask for help, most guys don't have much experience working through their feelings. Although a guy might be able to cry on a woman's shoulder, he's probably crying in his beer with his male friends.

We teach men that violence is a viable solution to problems. That's the message behind expressions like "let's go outside and settle this like men." It's one of the messages that's transmitted in all those action movies: violence is an acceptable way to respond to a threat, even if your own violence isn't strictly legal. If you've seen the video Seung-Hio Cho recorded before he went on his rampage, he's posing like some of those movie characters.

On Friday afternoon, we know very little about James Holmes, the Colorado shooting suspect. But we do know a fair amount about those other boys and men who've been accused and convicted of these kinds of shootings.

In one way or another, they all felt like there was an ongoing problem that couldn't be solved. Maybe they didn't ask for help with their problems, or maybe they asked once or twice, but there was no help to be had. Initially, they were probably sad or hurt, the result of being picked on, ostracized, or abandoned by someone who was important to them. When the situation didn't change and those feelings didn't go away, and when other people stopped listening even though the guys were (still) sad, those feelings turned to resentment and then anger. Anger can be energizing, and anger often leads to violence. From there, it's a straightforward line to action, and that action can be quite violent.

In almost every case, the killer thought about what he'd do for weeks, if not months. Immediately prior to the shooting, the killer spends an hour or so getting ready: checking weapons, putting on protective gear, going to the site, making any last minute adjustments, etc. The shootings are rarely impulsive, spontaneous, never-thought-about-it-before decisions.

If we're serious about preventing these mass shootings from continuing to happen, we can change the odds by changing some of the messages we give to boys and men. We need to start accepting that boys and men are human beings, not automatons who know it all and can always control their feelings and act rationally. We need to start telling boys and men it's ok to ask for help and to provide them with ways to express their sadness. And when they take us up on those offers and ask for help or share their feelings, we need to accept them for who they are and what they're going through, and not shame them for not being "man enough."[/quote]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1343319106' post='1140896']
Sure all of that could be true, but I'd rather take 1% chance of defending myself with a gun, than 0% chance of defending myself with a 9 iron.
[/quote]

Why is the 9 iron 0%, you could beat some ass with that thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='sois' timestamp='1343333571' post='1140919']
Why is the 9 iron 0%, you could beat some ass with that thing.
[/quote]

Not if they brought a gun.

You know why the indians lost the war for the wild west? They brought bows and arrows to a gun fight.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right, the "defend yourself from tyrannical government" argument is obviously null and void. It's a dumb point and does nothing to advocate owning an assault rifle.

Like I said... it's an enthusiast item. Just like riceboy can buy turbos and wings for his Civic (excessive things that are generally useless except for his own amusement), a gun nut can get an overpowered military-style weapon so he can blow stuff away at the range. There is access to this stuff because there is a demand for it. One isolated incident doesn't change the fact that the other millions of these rifles legally owned in the U.S. AREN'T being used to blow away innocent moviegoers.

FYI, 6000 rounds isn't a whole lot for someone who goes to the range often - competitive shooters at practice, or just gun enthusiasts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1343342067' post='1140935']
You're right, the "defend yourself from tyrannical government" argument is obviously null and void. It's a dumb point and does nothing to advocate owning an assault rifle.

Like I said... it's an enthusiast item. Just like riceboy can buy turbos and wings for his Civic (excessive things that are generally useless except for his own amusement), a gun nut can get an overpowered military-style weapon so he can blow stuff away at the range. There is access to this stuff because there is a demand for it. One isolated incident doesn't change the fact that the other millions of these rifles legally owned in the U.S. AREN'T being used to blow away innocent moviegoers.

FYI, 6000 rounds isn't a whole lot for someone who goes to the range often - competitive shooters at practice, or just gun enthusiasts.
[/quote]

Sorry but your opinion that the:

[quote]You're right, the "defend yourself from tyrannical government" argument is obviously null and void.[/quote]

is dumb in itself. Do you live in a cave? Have you not seen what has gone on in the middle east lately? Syria, Egypt, and Libya just as a few examples. Those were despot governments that were allowed to rule because they held a firm grip on what the people of their countries could have. We live in a democratic free society for a reason. The same reasons that the fore fathers of us thought about eons ago. The masses have the right to bear arms so that they have the ability to defend themselves against threats both foreign [b]and[/b] domestic. It's people with that same mindset as you that would lead our nation to downfall and destruction. If you think the United States is immune to violence that isn't random, you are greatly mistaken.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1343342804' post='1140943']
Sorry but your opinion that the:



is dumb in itself. Do you live in a cave? Have you not seen what has gone on in the middle east lately? Syria, Egypt, and Libya just as a few examples. Those were despot governments that were allowed to rule because they held a firm grip on what the people of their countries could have. We live in a democratic free society for a reason. The same reasons that the fore fathers of us thought about eons ago. The masses have the right to bear arms so that they have the ability to defend themselves against threats both foreign [b]and[/b] domestic. It's people with that same mindset as you that would lead our nation to downfall and destruction. If you think the United States is immune to violence that isn't random, you are greatly mistaken.
[/quote]

I would like to hear about this plan of yours where you take on an M1 Abrams or an F16 with an assault rifle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is absolutely no way a popular armed uprising against the government could succeed without out at least a partial fracturing of the armed forces in support of the movement... Technology is far different than what it was in the 1700's. At that time, an armed civil militia could level the playing field for the most part with muskets and whatnot..

I really don't think that is a relevant argument at this point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1343346768' post='1140959']
I would like to hear about this plan of yours where you take on an M1 Abrams or an F16 with an assault rifle.
[/quote]

Pipe bombs? You act as if there no way to stop a tank.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1343347130' post='1140965']
:lol:

Good luck with that.
[/quote]

Pipe bombs are pretty lethal...To be honest I'm not exactly the amateur explosives expert. I do know you guys are making the wrong argument. How would it be logical to say that the current gun laws allow citizens the ability to kill each other under the Second Amendment, yet not enough fire power to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. So if that's true we might as well just get rid of guns altogether, instead of giving citizens even more rights? That is the most illogical argument I've heard to date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1343347663' post='1140969']
Pipe bombs are pretty lethal...To be honest I'm not exactly the amateur explosives expert. I do know you guys are making the wrong argument. How would it be logical to say that the current gun laws allow citizens the ability to kill each other under the Second Amendment, yet not enough fire power to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. So if that's true we might as well just get rid of guns altogether, instead of giving citizens even more rights? That is the most illogical argument I've heard to date.
[/quote]

Because citizens dont have access to M1s or F16s. Are you suggesting they should? Further are you suggesting our votes aren't a effective way to stop that tyrannical government?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1343348467' post='1140971']
Because citizens dont have access to M1s or F16s. Are you suggesting they should? Further are you suggesting our votes aren't a effective way to stop that tyrannical government?
[/quote]

Anyone and everyone that really knows government, knows that the President is nothing but a figurehead to the wealthy. Feel free to Google the Illuminati and the Free Masons. When you are done reading about them, go read up on Ted Nuggent. Eventually you'll see as citizens we need to keep one hand on our guns, and one eye on our own government. The government we have today is nowhere near the government our fore fathers imagined.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...