Slashdot Mirror
12 Dead, 50 Injured at The Dark Knight Rises Showing In Colorado
beaverdownunder sends the sad news that a gunman opened fire on an audience watching the new Batman movie early this morning, killing 12 and wounding 50 others. The shooting took place in Aurora, Colorado, and the suspect was arrested by police.
"Witnesses told KUSA that the gunman kicked in an emergency exit door and threw a smoke bomb into the darkened theater before opening fire. One movie-goer, who was not identified, told KUSA the gunman was wearing a gas mask. Some people in the audience thought the thick smoke and gunfire was a special effect accompanying the movie, police and witnesses said."
I would put money down that is some right-wing nutjob that has been riled up by the idiotic comments on Fox News and Rush Limbaugh's program over the last few days.
Not a lot mind you, but it is still not a bad bet.
n/m
I don't understand, in the past there was sometimes very strict rules in bars and pubs not to carry gun there. I don't care that you carry a gun for self protection on street. Why they were made obsolete?
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
Why so serious?
The shooter should have at least done the world a favor and taken himself out, too. What a fucking piece of shit...
It's dangerous there !!
I am not The Jerk !!
Pat downs and body scanners are coming to the movie theaters.
Straight to partisan blame? You've clearly found a tragedy to capitalize on.
Read TF summary, numbnuts. Had the audience been armed, this wouldn't have happened.
From what I read, the shooter came into the theater from outside through an emergency exit door. I don't know how he got it open, unless perhaps someone had propped it open to sneak their friends into the theater, that happens at my local theater all the time...
Bet they all were talking during the movie.
Yes, of course. Becuase had that movie theatre had a sign the gunman would have said "Shucks" and turned right around and found another theatre.
Wow they really get pissed off when you block their access to Rotten tomato http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2012/07/19/the-dark-knight-rises-raises-ugly-debate-on-rotten-tomatoes
Way to go fucker, that move was great, how dare you interupt it with your phyco rampage, I'd want at least a refund on my ticket.
It caused violence even before it was shown.
impose strict laws like the rest of the first-world-west (even CH, which is strict, in the must-have-a-gun-direction) but this do-whatever-you-want-with-gunownership has got to slop
How would the people in that audience being armed, in a dark theater, with fucking smoke from the smoke grenades he tossed in before he started shooting, have made much of a difference at all?
How long did this incident go on? A minute? According to CNN he killed 12 people (their revised figure) and wounded 50 more. Even Quick Draw McGraw wouldn't have been able to stop him from killing a few people. Those people would have died whether the audience was armed or not...
While we can go to great lengths to guard against some types of security threat, we are reminded once again that the greatest risk is often from somebody who decides to take something lethal to a crowded place and do his worst with it.
People in the thread already engaging in partisan political speculation about motives relating to the film's plot or controversies surrounding it. Give it a rest, guys - too soon. It'll all come out in due course, but there's every chance it was nothing more than somebody with a random grievance picking a target area he knew would be crowded.
If you want attention, just post a sex tape like everyone else. Make love, not war
Amerikans ask why other countries look down on them as savages, well here you go fatties. Instead of doing the sensible thing and banning firearms there will be a vigil with candles and some hurumphing from white people and then it will be forgotten about just like every other self inflicted tragedy. Why? The constitution is why. A document written when over half the citizens of the country still spent most of the day focused on food (either hunting or farming) that most put on some religious level, which if intelligent people have let religion go since it's outdated maybe amerikans can let go of their out dated constitution and get a new one.
Guns are not needed in a modern western society. Only the fucked up places like the US, Czechs, and the Swiss seem to need them to masturbate or something.
At least he would be forced to checked. 1 guy would have died instead of 14. I don't know, just my guess.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
Umm... Would the name calling gentleman be so kind as to explain, why incidents like this are very rare in countries which do not provide ready access to guns to the general public?
Do you think someone who is planning to commit multiple murders is going to care about a rule telling them they shouldn't bring their gun in? or care about setting off a metal detector as they barge-in?
Rules against bringing guns in are probablly good at reducing the damage when a fight gets out of hand (which is presumablly why bars and pubs had them) but they aren't going to stop premeditated attacks (indeed they may make them easier because they mean the regulars will be unable to fight back).
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Your'e absolutely right. The entire audience should have been armed so that instead of one nutjob shooting there would also be tens or hundreds of people shooting wildly in all directions as they hear gunshots and see someone near them with a gun.
And all the bloodshed would have been avoided.
Yeah, that strange, because emergency exit door is usually closed from outside.
Ok, but that at least explains how man with two shotguns and in full armor can walk into cinema.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
Yeah, it would have probably been much worse.
He was just combining his right to bare arms with his right to free speech.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
He could have at least dressed up as The Joker.
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
people who wanted to watch the movie got everything they deserved and more if they got shot. pity he didnt kill more.
It should be noted that this didn't happen in a bar or pub.
It should also be noted that shooting people is illegal. If you're inclined to obey laws, then you won't shoot them, even if you have a gun. If you're not inclined to obey them, then you're going to be willing to acquire and use a gun in spite of it being illegal.
And finally, it should be noted that even including this incident, the murder rate in Colorado is lower than it is in Washington DC, where owning a firearm is essentially illegal....
Actually it should be noted that, ignoring RATE, there are more murders in Washington DC (population 600k or so) than in Colorado (population 5.1 million or so) in a typical year.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
why I am getting modded as a "troll" because you clowns can't decide if you want/don't want weapons.
Kinda coincidental it happen when the US government is ramping up gun control, don't ya fink?
It wouldn't, but now there's a nice pretext to put body scanners!
We need that quick fix! Blame the Guns! Thats the Answer!
Don't blame the Society that desires a movie that glorifies violence and subversive behavior!
Don't blame the School that grinds down the individual.
Don't blame the Friends that saw a lost person and walked away.
Don't blame the Parents that watched Wheel of Fortune instead of constructive activities.
Nah, it must be the tools.
Where flying jet propulsion aircraft is safer than going to cinema.
impose strict laws like the rest of the first-world-west (even CH, which is strict, in the must-have-a-gun-direction) but this do-whatever-you-want-with-gunownership has got to slop
Yeah, such an event could NEVER happen in a place with sane gun laws.
Like Norway
Oh, wait.
You're a knee-jerk, unthinking twerp.
Yes, you are correct. Because ordinary people with guns won't know how to react in the presence of criminals with guns and innocent bystanders will get maimed and shot by bullets flying everywhere.
We can't possibly have, say, a 63 year old, getting off 4 shots in under 3 seconds --all of which hit both criminals-- in a crowded internat cafe: http://www.myfoxorlando.com/story/19035444/customer-shoots-suspects-during-internet-cafe-robbery
Nope. We will quickly forget the aforementioned incident becuase innocent lives we *not* lost. But gun control advocates will dance in the blood of the victims of the Colorado shooting in an effort to cram more useless gun control down our throats.
Nope. We can't train ordinary people simple tactics and gun safety.
And all the bloodshed would have been avoided...
... next time around.
Would this be a Slashdot story if the shooting had occurred at a showing of "Magic Mike" or "Madea's Witness Protection" rather than "The Dark Knight Rises"?
Not to demean the original tragedy, or those involved in it, but lots of unpleasant things of this calibre or worse happen all the time and don't make it here because it isn't- and isn't meant to be- a general news site.
Add smoke to panicked people carrying guns and that would had made a big difference,
I doubt it, more than likely he burst in and started spraying wildly in the theater, probably within mere seconds, so even if half the people in that theater had been packing, they likely wouldn't have prevented anything. If anything, they probably would have increased the body count as they started shooting crazily in the dark and smoke filled theater (he threw a smoke grenade, remember? He was wearing a mask, the audience wasn't) and there probably would have been another half-dozen or so people killed.
Of the people I know who have a concealed carry license (we just got CC here in WI within the last year or so), only a handful have any real firearms handling experience, mostly through prior military service. Most everyone else just took the 4 hour course the state mandates. The fact that they're able to carry a firearm doesn't make me feel safer at all, and a few of the people actually scare me that they're legally allowed to carry concealed (stupid kids that think it makes them tough).
What are you talking about? You do not get 'checked' when a business has a sign that says no guns, it simply means if you are a law abiding citizen with a CCW and someone finds out you have a gun in there, you will get charged. Of course, anyone who goes to these places to shoot people, is not going to care about the sign or being charged for breaking the business' no-guns policy.
"...I think the Microsoft hatred is a disease." - Linus Torvalds
Umm... Would the name calling gentleman be so kind as to explain, why incidents like this are very rare in countries which do not provide ready access to guns to the general public?
Ah, my good ol' friend correlation does not imply causality. Now, rather than explain anything I'll simply point out that number 4 on the list of gun ownership/capita is Switzerland where incidents like this are rare. So perhaps you would be so kind as to explain why you jump to such glib conclusions as to the cause of this incident.
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
In China this would have just been a knife attack instead of a shooting.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
You seriously think that banning guns will stop people, especially those that don't care about laws, from owning guns and using them? You honestly think that by enacting strict laws shootings will stop? Guns won't stop being produced and guns won't stop being obtainable. The cat is out of the bag. The best thing you can do is teach those who would be willing to take on the responsibility of gun ownership how to properly handle and use their firearm(s). If you knew one of 10 people were carrying (statistically), you would be _much_ less apt to try and pull off a stunt like this and if you did try, there would be (statistically) quite a few people willing and able to stop your threat. But just telling people to enact laws to make the problem go away... you mean like making marijuana illegal made it go away, right? If you outlaw guns then only outlaws will carry guns.
add a Hollywood feeding endless violence, and a gun culture and guess what you get.
Isn't brown people, or gay people, or Muslims. It's crazy. Crazy is the root cause behind most of mankind's problems, be that war or criminal behavior or just everyday sociopathic behavior.
We need a "war on crazy", free mental healthcare for all and easing the ability for family and friends to compel treatment, coupled with increased government spending on treatment for mental illnesses.
Except there's more money to be made in cleaning up after other people's crazy (defense and police and corrections spending) than there is in trying to prevent it. So it'll never happen.
My condolences to all those affected.
Umm... Would the name calling gentleman be so kind as to explain, why incidents like this are very rare in countries which do not provide ready access to guns to the general public?
Anders Breivik got all his guns and explosives ingedients legally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik These shootings abroad --in both countries that do and don't have easy access to guns-- are becoming more common. Maybe it's a refelction on society and not access to inanimate objects?
Also, where I live in New York City, that is, we still have very strict gun control and that hasn't done one thing for the massive spike of shotting recently.
I laughed.
Don't blame the society that demands a movie that glorifies violence and subversiveness!
Don't blame the School that grinds the individual.
Don't blame the Friends that saw the pain and walked away
Don't blame the Parents that watched TV and ignored their child.
Don't blame the Individual that made a horrible choice.
Yeah, it must bee the tool used because we are too lazy t o fix the real problems.
Yeah the ones at my local theater don't even have handles on the outside of the door, and they have those alarm boxes on them with the push-bars like most places do for emergency exits, but I've seen those doors propped open many times so the alarms must either be broken or deactivated. Probably deactivated; I've seen people smoking near that door. More than likely, employees use it themselves to take a secret smoke break...
In Israel, believe it or not, we have very strict gun control laws. We also have few massacres, and the ones that have happened have mostly been religious crazies attacking another group, which is a different kind of terrorism than this sort of massacre. I've lived in the US and grew up part of my childhood in America, and came back to America to work for many years as well.
What is interesting is that in Israel, we have thousands of people walking around not just with guns, but the most fearsome guns in the world usually. It's rare that I'm not on the train or a bus where someone isn't at least 3 seats from me carrying some breed of machine gun. You would think with all the 19 year old kids walking around with guns and often pissed off at this country and being in the army, we'd have more problems with shootings like this one, but we rarely do. It's not that it doesn't ever happen, but the gun culture here is very different than the US.
Firstly, in the army you are taught that a gun kills and you need to take your gun seriously. When you first are issued your gun and from that point on, you're not allowed to let it leave your sight ever. Technically you don't need your gun with you at all times, but you are definitely responsible for your own gun. If someone uses your gun or steals your gun, you're most likely going to prison and going to be in some serious trouble. So much fear is put into people about this, that most people will take their guns with them literally everywhere. It is not uncommon to see soldiers on leave going to the beach with their guns still around their shoulders. You are also taught to keep your safety on and to carry it without bullets loaded, unless of course you are on duty.
Therefore, we have entire generations of people who know how to use guns, and often use them well. They also understand gun safety, that a gun kills, and is only for last resort. Even if you are on duty, you often have to use rubber bullets first, and aim for the legs, never the head or heart. You can get in serious trouble for even following orders but shooting poorly at someone who is firing live ammo or fire bombs at you. People don't realize how much sometimes it can take to let IDF soldiers actually use proper ammunition (this often happens at the expense of the safety of our soldiers).
It's an interesting effect to see how serious people take guns here and how reluctant they are to use them. The media paints other pictures. One might also believe that massacres don't happen like this one as often because so many people have guns that you probably wouldn't last long. If it's not a soldier that gets you, it's a security guard or police.
One last point as well is that when we enter almost any populated building such as a mall or movie theater, we always go through metal detectors and sometimes a pat down or x-ray machine. And yet this process isn't like in the US where they screen so heavily and still don't find. We screen a lot lighter, but find lots, but we rely more on the human factor of looking for signs such as nervous twitches, sweat, and profiling of threats. In my time working the border, we found bombs on pregnant women and in ambulances all kinds of ridiculous things. It's a tough thing for everyone involved whether it is our own citizens or screening people entering and leaving our borders. It's sometimes humiliating for both involved (trust me, anyone who has worked guard duty and done searches in the IDF doesn't want to be doing it), but it keeps us safer than we otherwise be.
I hope the US doesn't become more of a police state. I also hope that people can learn more gun responsibility. Something seems like it needs to change as either an outright ban, or a different approach to all of it than exists now.
rotting corpse Fre3BSD had long of its core beyond the scope of So that you don't BitTorrent) Second, There are only that the project
Marijuana is another issue that the US can't decide if it's wants it legal or not. Either make it legal or don't, but don't leave it in the grey area. Guns/Marijuana/Homosexual Marriage should just be decided upon. America is very wishy-washy.
In theory, if everyone was armed, a single armed person would have little chance to have a long killing streak.
In theory. Theory doesn't do well in reality.
Then again, neither does the theory of gun control. To ban guns follows the theory that if nobody has a gun, nobody can go on a killing spree. It works, to a certain degree. It is certainly true that countries with tighter gun control have FEWER incidents like this. Fewer. Not none. Because so far, it has been proven anything but impossible for those who are even slightly determined, to get hold of firearms. Even love boys who never did anything wrong and are totally innocent can somehow magically get hold of a complete arsenal without their mommy and daddy finding out. See every single youth criminal and their parents claim.
In for instance the shooting of Pim Fortuyn or the French attacks on Jews, it is not considered of any interest how these non-professional terrorists managed to get a gun so easily.
American anti-gun control advocates are however happy to point this out with "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns". They seem to have a point.
BUT America does allow a lot of personal gun ownership. So are victims of gun crime in the US more likely to defend themselves? You certainly don't hear much about it. Has any shooting like this been ended by a civilian carrying a gun? Any? Ever? I don't know. Not saying because I don't know it has never happened, just that I would expect gun nuts to never stop talking about such cases.
In Israel however several terrorists have been stopped by armed civilians. But then again, most Israeli's have done military service and military service in Israel really does mean something. So, it can work. If you give everyone a two year combat training and keep the religious wacko's out. (Excused from service).
BUT there are only a tiny number of circumstances. How come?
In India, there was an attack a few years ago by Muslim terrorists and during that fully trained and higly experienced armed police were slaughtered as they ran into a Muslim. The reason is that normal people have hesitations, compulsions and morals. Muslims do not, so in the split second it would have taken these officers to determine they had run into an animal, they had already died. The evil can always act faster and quicker because they don't have to think.
You are in a crowded theater, the lights are out, an action movie is playing with flashes, loud noises and gunshots and lots of screaming both on screen and in the audience. Suddenly shit happens. Before you have even realized what has happened, let alone identified the attacker, grasped your gun, unlocked the safety, aimed and made a shot that would not put others in danger... you are already dead on the floor.
It is why terrorists can attack on army bases, because normal people are not, cannot be, constantly ready for instant action all the time. The attacker ALWAYS has first mover advantage.
Some of the victims in this shooting were hit by bullets coming through the walls. How do you defend against this? You would need a superhero to be able to dodge a bullet in a split second and start returning fire through a wall without ending up killing innocents on the other side.
I remember an old TV movie that explored the idea of gunowner ship and in it, it is allowed in one town for everyone to carry a gun. A couple of outside robbers come into a supermarket, try to rob it and find dozens of guns aimed at them. They surrender.
Proof? No... The robbers weren't insane or had a death wish. If they were real people, they wouldn't want to kill anyone, just go in, get money, get out. That kind of crime CAN be prevented with gun owner ship. HOWEVER, in Belgium there was a case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nijvel_gang which showed a different kind of criminal, someone who wants to kill, not use threats to steal.
The gun man in this theater started shooting without warning. Ho
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
What, you mean like Mexico and other Latin American Countries? "Oh, wait.." as people here frequently like to say..
"...I think the Microsoft hatred is a disease." - Linus Torvalds
In my day if we didn't like the movie we just slashed the seat. I miss the drive-in.
Blank until
The FBI, which is working with the police, says no terrorism link has been established.
This is the most amazing quote, ever.
if this was not 'terrorism', how is some "brown" guy working on his own branded as terrorist even if he hasn't done anything yet?
No worries guys, this was not terrorism, so you can just relax.
It's amazing that we leave in time where "terrorism" seem to be defined by color of the skin or ethnicity or religion, rather than action.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nijvel_gang
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Yup, would have been a much higher death toll.
Blatant Advert: Android Apps!
Yes, a darkened smokebombed theatre is exactly the same as a brightly lit Internet cafe.
Just like a sorry European killed 4,000,000 unarmed Jews in Europe??? Another nut killed 7,000,000 unarmed people in the Soviet Union??
Earlier this week, Fred Willard was arrested by LAPD for an attempted shooting at an adult theater.
Related incident?
Lets say for a moment that gun control laws would have kept this individual from acquiring them. Waiting for the movie to let out and then driving a vehicle at high speed into the crowd would likely kill and injure as many or more people. If someone loses their mind and wants to kill people, there is little we can do to stop them. It's tragic, but it's part of the price of a free country.
As much as it would be great to be able to prevent horrible events like this, it is important to remember that at some point we have to accept that a certain amount of evil has to be tolerated if we want to live in a free society. A locked down police state would likely not be a state worth living in.
Regardless, I offer my condoleances to the families affected by this horrible attack.
.: Max Romantschuk
The Swiss also have an obligation to do military training, so it's not quite the same situation, as the population could easily be defined as a militia. But these kind of events might become less common in the US if their citizens had the same responsibilities to go with gun ownership.
Those rules were enforced by armed bartenders and guards. Do you want to give a weapon to the projector guy or the flashlight kid?
There's are rules against killing people too that clearly didn't prevent this tragedy, but you think a rule against carrying a gun into the building would have made this guy turn around and walk away???
You'll note those countries have much more problem with losing liberty and relying on US efforts to regain it.
Right according to Second Amendment theory.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Washington DC is a unique situation, it's a city without its own true self-governance, meant to be a national capital, run by Congress, yet outside of their particular domains, they leave the rest of it to rot.
I wonder if it's symbolic of how they treat the nation.
Still, DC's homicide rate has dropped to its lowest level in years. But do remember, guns in DC can come from who knows where. Maybe DC's problem is something besides their gun laws.
put metal detectors every where at malls , at theatres and such LOL ...i endorse this.
lets make sure we kill off with cancer all the regular people going to these things
hollywood people and the govt of obama and his romney secret buddies are causing all this.
Corporation are trying to take over ....its gona get ugly people get used to it.
maybe the next time you goto a theatre you might wonder if its me about to kill you for supporting hollywood...or the metal detector.
or and for a few hundred bucks a galon i can make super plastic strong as steel and non detector works...imagine the guns i can make.
Special forces
Canadian Military
classified military ranking
Mortor Platoon
( waves )
President and Chairperson
United Hackers Association
haha
There was a smoke grenade thrown, but we do not know many pertinent details. Was visibility *totally* obscured for everyone? It's possible someone would have gotten a clear shot on the guy before he killed and injured most of the people he did. Of course, I guess it's possible it was about as much visibility as a moonless desert night, and everyone would of shot each and died too, but I find that extremely unlikely. Also, if everyone was armed, I doubt people such as the shooter would even attempt this, they'd usually be too scared they'd get shot too fast before causing lots of damage, and thus waste their one chance for fame and glory.
"...I think the Microsoft hatred is a disease." - Linus Torvalds
So it's the lack of gun control in combination with the American cultural and social state that is the problem then? Then choose what you wan't to change.
A knife attack ending up with 12 people dead and 50 wounded?
Are you implying that the other 2,000,000 Jews were armed?
It is time that the manufacture of guns to be covered by legislation. There is no constitutional amendment about the right to manufacture fire arms.
You Americans cans still own them because of your archaic constitutional amendment they will just be much harder to get.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
You mean like that ultraviolent Switzerland?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
You sir are an idiot. You can't legislate evil away. Taking guns away from honest citizens only guarantees that the bad guys will be the only ones with guns. Unfortunately people like this are very hard to stop. But I think it's very naive to think if you have stricter gun control laws it would stop these people. If they didn't have guns they'd do it with a machete or a chainsaw. Some people are just that fucked up.
Nope. We can't train ordinary people simple tactics and gun safety.
That is correct. They will forget and disregard their training the second they begin fearing for their lives.
impose strict laws...
Laws only take the guns out of the hands of the wrong people.
No sig today...
So perhaps you would be so kind as to explain why you jump to such glib conclusions as to the cause of this incident.
Don't you dare to even associate opensource developers with violent terror in a sentence.
Us gnu/glib devs keep our terror limited to mailing lists. Apart from that, we rarely leave our basements.
If we wanted to do it, we would keep the planning opensource, with public git access for all.
Umm... Would the name calling gentleman be so kind as to explain, why incidents like this are very rare in countries which do not provide ready access to guns to the general public?
Ah, my good ol' friend correlation does not imply causality. Now, rather than explain anything I'll simply point out that number 4 on the list of gun ownership/capita is Switzerland where incidents like this are rare. So perhaps you would be so kind as to explain why you jump to such glib conclusions as to the cause of this incident.
Well, I could be wrong, but I think that gun ownership in Switzerland is practically mandatory due to military service requirements. On the other hand, I hadn't heard that they run around the streets packing heat like in the USA.
Only idiots assume that citizens having guns *prevents* nutjobs from shooting.
Did you really have to put it that way?
We used to have unrestricted gun ownership and carry laws - think "Wild West" - and gradually laws were enacted to restrict those rights.
Why? Because a few people abused it. Folks with anger and impulse control issues were hurting and killing people. And even if one were in the "right", most people in conflict lose a bit of their marksmanship - bullets don't hit their target and hit other things and people. To be precise enough and calm enough to NOT do that takes quite a bit of training and who has the time, money (ammo is expensive!) or desire to spend the time everyday shooting targets? And considering some of the calibers out there, even if you hit your target, they go through it until it hits something or someone else.
In populous areas, guns are a horrible self defense weapon - or offensive weapon for that matter; unless you don't care about who or what you may hit.
These laws evolved over time for a good reason. Granted, because of the hap hazard way they were written and knee-jerk responses to the events of the time these laws were written, we get some really asinine restrictions - at one time one New England state required a carry permit to drive a gun from your house to the range even if it were locked up IIRC.
So, now that I got your attention. In Holland there was a young girl who wanted to sail around the world. Big fucking deal except the carebears thought she shouldn't. Turns out now she was stalked by several pedo's one of who has now been convicted. So, sailing around the word: to dangerous. Leaving pedo's running free, well, that is the risk you got to take for living in a "free" society.
However, the one convicted turned himself in. What to do? Lock away for life as some pedo's themselves have suggested? NO! Not for human rights. To costly.
Every early release, pre-release, test-release etc etc is not motivated by carrying for human beings but because long term stay either voluntary or mandatory costs a LOT of money. In Holland the right complained the left was to lax in sending people to prison, then there first act in power? To close prisons!
Some people need to be locked up for life. This doesn't need to be terrible, you can make such a stay very humane, just not optional. I talk about pedo's for a reason. Some WANT exactly this, to be taken away from the normal world where they are afraid to give into temptation and be allowed to live in peace? Why not? Arrange an island somewhere and create a gated community that locks from the outside. The not-yet dangerous pedo can live in peace and safety and so can the rest of society.
But you CAN'T! Because the bleeding hearts cannot accept that all people cannot be molded into the same one size fits all shape and the right refuses to pay for it.
Mental care for dangerous people is possible but is a long and costly process with no guarantee the person ever returns to a "normal" safe condition. Putting someone away for life is just not on anymore. A recent high-profile pedo case in holland revealed that the man in question had asked his doctor for chemical castration. The doctor refused. Didn't fit with his world view, so some kids had to be tortured instead because the bleeding heart thought the pedo didn't know himself well enough.
And it is not about money, that is just another sort of insanity.
It is that those in power have dreams and those dreams cannot deal with reality. Reality that some people just don't fit in society and the only answer is to remove them in time and that this is going to cost a fortune! But we find it more humane to send a person with severe mental issues home with an aspirin and an appointment and then send them to a hellish jail when they snap, rather then send them to a nice hospital for long stay.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
http://www.top5ofanything.com/index.php?h=db8a4490
If you see no3, this happened in Australia before gun control. After the ban was imposed a buy-back scheme was put in place. Now days the occasional gun caches found and the occasional theif or crim has a conciled gun in the street - most of which are single fire weapons.
Can I say it solved the problem? Yes, single fire weapons means people can disarm the criminal a single fire weapon makes it unfeasible to carry. Australia benefits from the fact it's a bit more isolated aswell. The US, however, would have a hard time keeping such laws into play considering who their neighbors are.
Guns make it easy to terminate another life. Get rid of the implement that allows such efficiency and yes it works. No it won't work in the US, cause blatantly the US is fucked.
In summary, it's not the guns fault, it's not the individuals fault. It's the nation at fault just like everything else to come from the US. GFC, Apple computers, Bush, hot dog encrusted pizza crusts.... The list is really pretty fuckin endless.
You are modded as a troll because this is not the forum to spout about gun control. This issue isn't about gun control at all - its about the lack of reverence for human life. The questions that should be asked are more along the line how do we educate our children to revere each other's lives and not place their pride before such reverence. How do we teach them to appreciate and respect each other, even when they have opposing views and beliefs? Clearly, we're failing in that regard.
As far as gun control, we need only look at Chicago to see how well that works. There needs to be a happy medium between Chicago and what's happened in Colorado.
Its this very reason that 2 years of compulsory military service should be manditory.
1) populace not dumbed down to be unable to recognize gunfire
2) a chance gunman would have been id'd as having mental issues
3)populace would have better chance to subdue gunman and protect themselves as they would have military training.
Or a fertilizer bomb.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
I see. So there is a correlation between lower murder rates and legal gun ownership.
How about this correlation:
Colorado is mostly White and DC is mostly Black.
So guns don't kill people. Dangerous minorities do.
To understand what medications he has been on.
Anti-depressants weren't around many years ago.
Neither were these types of random mass murders by youth.
Proof? No. Worth investigating, certainly.
That is in part because New York has very porous borders that people from states with no gun control laws whatsoever can cross with trucks filled with guns without inspection, guns which were produced by commercial enterprises for sale in the states which have less or no gun control. You can't have strict gun control laws unless you police your borders - and the only way New York City will ever police its borders is if Snake Plisskin is involved.
If you had the same strict gun control laws in every state, and thereby forced the gun companies to produce many fewer guns, and did a lot of work to buy back guns (without new ones being produced), you might see a better effect.
"Ok, but that at least explains how man with two shotguns and in full armor can walk into cinema."
Omar Little !
Although a shooting scares people more just as much carnage could be inflicted with a pickup truck driving through people waiting in line outside. It is the price you pay for freedom. You CANNOT stop a person that never committed a crime and decides to do this type of evil act. Unless you want to live in a complete police state and everyone under lock and key.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
From CNN:
Some people in the audience thought the thick smoke and gunfire was a special effect accompanying the movie, police and witnesses said.
We'll never know for sure, of course, but I'm betting that it wouldn't have made a difference if the audience had been packed with people carrying concealed. People don't expect to be opened fire upon in a movie theater, and the incident itself lasted only a few minutes at the most. He shot the place up and then dipped out.
If 100 people start shooting in a crowded theatre, with a smokebomb adding even more confusion, and half the people shooting haven't even seen who started shooting in the first place... yes, that is totally the same as one person shooting at one other clearly identifiable person without a crowd of bystanders.
in the USA..
in another news, in europe i never used a gun, i never saw a gun and i never saw someone firing one, much less being killed by one.
Of course. Everyone commits felonies, but only the real hardened criminals commit misdemeanors. Grand Theft Auto was a great game, but there was way too much jaywalking in it so I wouldn't let my kids play it.
I don't know about Mexico, but I live in South America and stuff like this simply doesn't happen (except for maybe, Columbia). You get the ocassional murders for robbery (if attempting to resist robbery with weapons) or revenge but people going into random killing sprees? Nope, that's news we hear mostly from the US.
"There would be shooting, but the shooter wouldn't have survived".
Are you 100% sure about the shooter not surviving? I am not. The smoke bomb probably would have prevented that, quite effectively.
An audience firing back into the smoke more likely would have killed even more.
Would the gun control have helped? Even if I'm pro gun control I don't think it would have helped here. It is really hard to tell as this was a seriously premeditated attack. This guy wanted to kill and harm and as judged by the gas mask it was planned well in advance.
It's a good thing no law-abiding citizen was armed there, someone might have been hurt.
Let me guess, the theater bans conceal-carry guns, I'd guess?
-Styopa
Yes but they are more mature and better educated than Americans.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
The shooter was in early 20's, so we can't blame the parents.
The shooter was more than old enough to own weapons.
The shooter appears to have some training in use of such weapons.
While I'm horribly saddened for all those people who went out to enjoy a premier of an action packed movie.
For someone to kick open an exit door, clearly the individual had every motive and intent to just kill. This isn't because he saw the movie and it made him violent. He already had violent tendencies and cares little for human life.
I am not a gun owner, and have only recently looked into receiving proper gun training so I am familiar enough to truly respect the laws in place. We have laws in place, but we have this other thing called a Constitution, which is clearly designed to allow each person to enjoy their rights as a citizen of this country. The gun and canisters used were only tools that this individual used. Would we scream afoul of gun ownership if this guy had swords or throwing knives and killed people that way, and then some citizen who legally carried a concealed weapon stopped this guy with the concealed weapon? No, we'd be praising that person with the gun as a hero. Would we then start adding more law about knife ownership?
The fact is that people are unpredictable. And whenever you have that you will always have unpredictable results.
I do not mean to sound as if I don't care. I Do. But massacres have been happening for as long as humans have walked this planet. Before instant news, it would be something we'd learn later. And while it is still tragic, and I wish it never happened, it did.
Creating restrictive laws has never stopped someone whose intent is mass damage. Blaming a movie is just someone's way of trying to take the blame from the individual.
How many of us grew up to the 3 Stooges or the Little Rascals? Both of those TV shows had tons of violence in them. Kids would put poison in cakes or nails. The Stooges would ride on rockets that were fired. Of the millions who saw that stuff as kids, you don't see us going on rampages.
Lets actually blame the problem of the massacre on the person and not the crap that people will speculate caused the killer to kill.
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
and in other news, in europe those beasts prefer hand to hand combat with knives last I checked.
and the mandatory training ... are you calling these guys crazy?
The Swiss army has long been a militia trained and structured to rapidly respond against foreign aggression. Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training, usually at age 20 in the Rekrutenschule (German for "recruit school"), the initial boot camp, after which Swiss men remain part of the "militia" in reserve capacity until age 30 (age 34 for officers). Each such individual is required to keep his army-issued personal weapon (the 5.56x45mm Sig 550 rifle for enlisted personnel and/or the 9mm SIG-Sauer P220 semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home. Up until October 2007, a specified personal retention quantity of government-issued personal ammunition (50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm) was issued as well, which was sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unauthorized use had taken place.[4] The ammunition was intended for use while traveling to the army barracks in case of invasion.
Yep. And the places they come from generally make it legal to own and carry firearms, and have lower murder rates than DC.
Most likely.
Which makes it odd that the usual response to a lunatic killing people is to scream for tighter gun laws...
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I expect some liberal congressman will now propose a law banning assault Batman movies.
My state has pretty much no gun laws. I open carry every day of my life. I'm often asked why I find the need to do so. I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and no have it. I'd like to die an old man knowing that I never had to draw my gun on anyone. Now, in a situation such as this one (dark, crowded room with lots of background noise) I would have just hi tailed it out of there. It takes MASSIVE amount of training to deal with such chaotic situations as this. Also, not everyone that carries is a gun toting maniac either. I feel as though everyone should own a firearm and should take a training course (much like driver's ed).
I live is Canada, so I'm certainly not an expert on less restrictive gun laws. I wonder about this however. I would think that even with laws that permit citizens to own and carry a weapon (concealed or otherwise), in a situation like in Denver, the ability to carry and shoot (say the type of practice a gun owner would get at a shooting range) would be useless as this is a completely different ballgame from controlled target practice.
My major concern any argument for carrying a weapon is that I do not think that the average gun owner (i.e. one that practices in controlled shooting situations and does not have any situational or combat training) would have been effective in stopping a shooter like this. One can extend this further and ask if even in a one-on-one firefight (which again, is not a scenario that I would imagine a typical gun owner trains for), an average gun owner could not reliably be expected to assess the situation and determine if shooting back would be a good or bad idea.
All in all, I think that while denying the ability for a citizen to arm themselves may be putting the weapons in the wrong hands, putting weapons in the hands of people that are not trained to use them effectively is not the full solution either. Perhaps having different types of weapon permits, one for hunting, another for shooting practice at ranges only, and carry permits that require mandatory combat and tactical training along with re-certification (like in the armed forces or law enforcement) would be a better idea.
-- Humans, because the hardware IS the software.
A forum for their hateful speech isn't overcome by his reasonable statements on gun control. Stating that ANY sizable group of humans have no "hesitations, compulsions and morals." Is pretty bad in my book.
You mean like we all are trained to drive safely and responsively? You can't train ordinary people simple tactics and gun safety because ordinary people don't care, won't listen and will quickly forget. Not until they get a close call, then they will listen... for a while, until their daily routine make them forget again.
And for the rest, those who do care, most will forget in the heat of the moment because of the stress of the situation. Or you need to train them until it all becomes reflexes. But that takes a lot of effort and dedication and ordinary people won't stand that, not when all it's needed to use a gun is point and press the trigger.
If you believe otherwise about ordinary people, you really need to go out and visit the world, not just your local militia.
As for your example, one data point doesn't make a statistics.
And from the look of the video, your 63 year old hero was just lucky he didn't hit a customer/employee. There was one right in the line of fire when he took a shot.
Then he would change tactics: Force open door, chuck some bombs and run. Face it, citizens armed to the teeth will not deter lunatics
Nope. We can't train ordinary people simple tactics and gun safety.
Not seems you cannot.
His last shots were through an open door into the street when the criminals were running away from him.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
This is hardly even related to Batman at all.
Ah Jesus. It should be noted that this kind of apologizing for gun-owners immediately after a gun massacre would only happen in America.
I don't understand. You Americans say you need guns for self protection (something we don't have over here in Europe).
With all these guns around why was no one protected?
Today, like every day of the year, an average of 90 people will die in traffic "accidents". Yes, every day. So can we stop all the hand-wringing about "gun violence" and do something meaningful about mental illness? Or drunk drivers?
Because those countries tend to have lower crime rates overall.
Years ago, the UN did a survey (they I can't find freely available anymore, unfortunately) of every country in the world. The correltaed "non-suicide gun-related deaths per capita" to "guns ownership per capita" along with a bunch of other figures. Based on those numbers, there was no correlation. For example: European countries with mandatory gun ownership had comparable non-suicide gun-related deaths per capita had similar crime rates to countries where guns were rare.
So were the laws working? Mostly yes: gun ownership per capita was lower in countries with stricter laws.
So what *does* correlate fewer non-suicide gun-related deaths? Better education. Lower overall crime.
It was a fascinating set of statistics and I wish I could link to it so that everyone could read it.
Fixed it for you...
"In India, there was an attack a few years ago by Muslim terrorists and during that fully trained and higly experienced armed police were slaughtered as they ran into a *terrorist*. The reason is that normal people have hesitations, compulsions and morals. *Terrorists* do not, so in the split second it would have taken these officers to determine they had run into an animal, they had already died. The evil can always act faster and quicker because they don't have to think."
Muslim != Terrorist despite what you may have been taught by Fox News
How this is 'Insightful' is beyond me... All we have now ascertained that the extremes are untenable. As usual.
no amount of laws can protect any society from a sufficiently motivated individual regardless of a nation's laws and assumed demeanor of it's people. Anders Behring Breivik proved that. Timothy McVeigh worked with others, but he didn't need a gun.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Don't turn a tragedy into a snarky chain of know-it-all comments, Innocent people died. This isn't a place to prove your intelligence.
Read TF summary, numbnuts. Had the audience been armed, this wouldn't have happened.
You are one of those many people that are total dumb-asses in believing that carrying a gun will forever protect you against being shot by someone else that also carry the gun, especially if that person has the upper hand on surprise. It really amazes me that people really are that stupid to think so. Smoke (in this case,) people on panic, and a chance for you to be shot first before you even have the time to pull a gun at the shooter. /flame over
neither, a security guard
There is a strong correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates. Actually, everybody in the rest of the world knows that, it's only in the US that some lobby wants to spin this fairly obvious fact into another direction.
Owning a gun does not increase violence or cause homicides, of course. Owning a gun simply makes it much easier for a violent person to kill.
Now whether gun control in the US could have a desired effect, that's another question. Given that the US is swamped in legal and illegal firearms, I guess the answer could be No. But don't fool yourself in thinking that there is no link between gun ownership and violent homicides.
The Swiss gun ownership number is pretty meaningless in that context.
Because you cannot carry around a gun in Switzerland just because you want to, you need permission to do so based e.g. on the occupation (protection service etc.). You can transport your military service weapon only when you go to practice and such (direct route only) and even then, the weapon must not be loaded and the rounds must not be in the magazine.
I was referring to the guys that go on shooting sprees in public as nutjobs... not gun owners as nutjobs. I come from rural NY where it's unusual for a house to have fewer guns than people (although handguns are somewhat rare, most are higher powered rifles and shotguns). As far as I'm aware, we haven't had any gun-related violence in a very long time.
However, I would call the Swiss crazy just because of what the Swiss Guard is willing to wear in public.
Well, your comments are slightly uneducated, seeing as the "Wild West" was largely a myth http://www.buzzle.com/articles/the-wild-west-of-myth-and-reality.html
in another news, in USA I have used a gun, I have seen a gun and I have seen someone firing one, but I've never seen anyone killed by one.
In fact, I at least 90% of Americans (outside of the military) have never seen anyone killed by a gun.
21st Century Renaissance Man
So apparently if 1 person in the theater was armed, everyone would be safe because he would open fire on the attacker (in the dark, loud sound, smoke and confusion, whatever).
What if 3 people returned fire? Then who is returning fire, and who is in league with the shooter? That could get alot worse, quickly.
If the USA would stop funding and arming the gangs in these countries it'd be a lot safer.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
If he just wore a purple suit, white face paint, and poison gas, and accompanied by maniacal laughter, it could have been a good PR stunt.
...that at least 12 are dead, 50 or more wounded, the shooter walks out uninjured and people actually believe the situation would have been worse if anyone in the audience had been armed? Wow. I'm quite sure there were people in the that theater desperately wishing they had a firearm with them. Those people were trapped because he was shooting those who fled for the exits. This is exactly the situation where someone armed could have saved numerous lives.
People on Slashdot apparently don't get out in the real world much.
I feel for the young victims, and the pro-gun-control victims.
Americans and their fetichistic love for firearms strikes again.
Hell Jules Vernes wrote about it more than 100 years ago. Go read the first pages of From the Earth to the Moon.
Umm... Would the name calling gentleman be so kind as to explain, why incidents like this are very rare in countries which do not provide ready access to guns to the general public?
Because we're not just a country with ready access to guns... we're a country of 300 million people with ready access to guns submerged in a culture that glorifies gun violence, shuns personal responsibility, and enjoys polarization around nearly every issue. Switzerland actually has a higher gun ownership rate than America and yet it _also_ manages to avoid this kind of craziness.
All I am saying is that while it is easy to point to the availability of guns as the culprit, closer to the truth is the idea that the equation behind these horrible events is probably a great deal more complicated than that.
Not every Asian person is an expert martial-artist. Stop watching Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon.
Never let a tragedy go to waste.
First blame it on a political motive. Must be a right-wing nut. Couldn't just be a plain old garden-variety nut, gotta be some way to blame your political opponents for this. Don't wait for the facts to come out, get the idea out there circulating that it's all part of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If you can't blame politics, then blame race. That old race card must still have SOME credit left on it.
Roll out the blood libels. Same old, same old. Blame Rush Limbaugh. Or is it Sarah Palin? Or has the Left found another opponent they want to demonize? Bush isn't president any more, so he's out. Has Romney said anything that can be spun as a call for violence? Get on that right away.
And of course reflexively call for gun control. Because the places with the toughest gun control in the USA have the lowest crime rates. Right Chicago? Detroit? Anybody?
Because any single incident is a good reason to impose more totalitarian control over society. Always.
In China this would have just been a knife attack instead of a shooting.
Or a bomb. Or he just decided to drive his car into the huge line of people waiting for the movie to start outside... perhaps a rented Van or SUV.
The guy was psycho, he came in heavily armed with illegal weapons and gas grenades (perhaps tear gas, which is illegal for civilians).
So obviously he really wanted this to happen. Even if there were magically no guns in a 1000km radius, he'd just find another method. And to be honest, a bomb or a car or a car-bomb might have done even more damage.
Apparently you haven't seen the comments from witnesses. There was plenty of time to at least try to take this guy down:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lm1EYiC3mxI
Hm, where's the government in his argument?
Amazing that not only someone would write something as stupid but that someone would actually copy it into a slashdot comment and be modded up for it.
I love this attitude from the pro-gun mob... "Rules never stopped anybody doing anything!" Then why do we spend so much energy making rules?
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
Gay marriage is the only one on that list that is in any "grey area".
Guns are legal. Marijuana isn't.
People have differing opinions of what the law "should" be, but opinions on a law don't bring it into a grey area.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Some are going to blame the shooting in Colorado on the Batman movie.
There are sick people in this world. If the Batman movie didn’t set them off, the barking dog next door would. Meaning: the movie isn’t the problem, it is the person who is sick in the head, you can’t blame videogames or movies or books.
The problem with my country, that I love but otherwise has some serious deep flaws: easy access to guns.
So thank you NRA, for another sale for the industry you lobby for.
And gun lovers, as far as I am concerned, this is blood on your hands.
A well-armed populace does not result in crazy people and gang bangers and hot heads being stopped. It just means more senseless death. You can't protect against a crazy person randomly and without warning firing on you. You aren't superhuman.
Giffords in gun happy Tucson was surrounded by well-armed people. So why wasn't she protected? Because you don't have omniscient powers and hair trigger reaction times and eyes in the back of your head: a crazy person is a complete surprise. Please drop the ridiculous myth that a gun is protection from these scenarios.
In another few months we will hear about this sort of thing again.
And occurrences like this are a lot rarer in other industrialized countries. Because they have sensible gun control laws.
Weep for my country, that is held hostage by gun lovers. And therefore so many innocents must die on a regular basis due their foolish and ignorant attitude towards easy access to guns.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Of course. I'm sure if this guy had just encountered a "No Guns Allowed" sign he would have pouted a bit and went home . . .
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
When was the last time Switzerland was attacked by another country? Their "army" is for show and tell. That's about it. Switzerland did do one thing "right", though. They made it their policy to hold people's money in secrecy - Even gold from the Nazi regime most of which was from theft from their enemies which included gold from concentration camp victims. The Swiss have a very nice country - I've been there many times. None the less, their "success" has long been based upon their support of thieves and murderers by protecting their money. Nobody attacks the Swiss. Not even the Swiss attack the Swiss; their crime rate is minuscule. Not to mention, the population of Switzerland is less than 8M people.
Yes, just take your statistics from within the US, a country with absurdly high gun ownership and murder rates.
In the best of circumstances, ignoring the confusion and panic, maybe...
Some people in the audience thought the thick smoke and gunfire was a special effect accompanying the movie, police and witnesses said.
Everything I'm reading says it happened very quickly. In a smoke filled theater, with people screaming and running around all over the place, I'm betting there would have been 'friendly-fire' incidents and and even higher body count. We'll never know either way, obviously, so I concede that it's possible, but I highly doubt it.
This seems to be a common belief with people who dislike gun possession. There are plenty of states that allow conceal carry. Most people choose not to. Can anyone provide any evidence something like this has ever happened? And I am not talking about one guy with poor judgement. I am talking about multiple people "shooting wildly."
Why was this marked +5 "Insightful"? I could understand "Funny" but Insightful is for a more serious & realistic point. The poster took "ready access to guns to the general public" to the extreme of "entire audience" will get guns and all are nutjobs shooting in all directions. What an insult to gun owners! If that was true, that would be the best thing that could happen for our society... we lose a whole bunch of nutjobs who probably would have done a ton of damage anyway with or without guns. Even the extreme gun people don't want such nutjobs to be around anyone let alone own guns.
More realistically, a few people will have guns and the majority of those who get them are sane enough not to shoot at the first moving thing. Most gun owners know the severity of the responsibility they carry. We are talking about a firearm, not a stinkbomb, slingshot, or BB gun. Grow up.
Without random people carrying guns, the attacker has the expectation (reward) of killing a lot of people. If they know they may face opposition, the attacker has to prepare for the outcome of engaging trained gunmen and face-planting dead after one step with no reward for their efforts. The attacker has to spend more resources (training, planning, equipment, etc) for less reward. This potential outcome is a big deterrant.
Even if they are ok with getting little to no reward, they will actually cause less damage as they will be gunned down after the initial surprise rather than wait for the ammo to run out. Imagine how armed undercover police officers all over the place would change the landscape. There is a reason why police stations don't get attached in this fashion. When it does, society is more shocked at the stupidity/crazyness/arrogance of the attacker than the inflicted damage.
Population of DC might be 600K but the reality is that it is sitting in the middle of a 5 million big agglomeration.
Firearms being illegal in DC does not mean a thing since you can have all you need in Virginia, a mile away.
Just keep the above in mind when you mix in the debate over gun control.
No, they would still use a gun. If someone wants a gun they are going to get it. Just like if someone wants heroin or meth, well, they are gonna get it. Prohibition or not.
That's just not true. I've used a single shot shotgun before, and I can easily get off three shots in less than 30 seconds. With a little practice, I could probably do better.
21st Century Renaissance Man
Your example is missing something important: discrete, visible targets that did not stand their ground, and gentleman that defended himself was a horrible shot: one assailant was grazed by a bullet, the other shot in the butt and hip. Thankfully no one else was hit or injured. So mission accomplished, but hardly in a controlled way that would have ended well in a crowded area.
Perhaps this gentleman had combat and/or tactics training, but this falls into my category of averting a crime of "opportunity" where the shooters were never intending on shooting or shooting back. So good for this guy and doing a good deed, but this is not the same type of scenario as in Denver, and had it been, the gentleman could easily have been dead before getting his gun out. Also remember the shooter in Denver supposedly had body armor on. Running out of cover towards the shooter would have been suicide.
-- Humans, because the hardware IS the software.
Yep. And the places they come from generally make it legal to own and carry firearms, and have lower murder rates than DC.
If you say so. I don't much care, we're talking about DC, and their guns are coming into DC. What that means is you have to control for the influence of outside guns making the gun laws in DC ineffectual when considering those laws.
That, and as I said, the problem being that DC doesn't govern itself. If you want to talk about places where they very strictly control guns in DC, you can see they have relatively few firearms incidents.
Plenty of other crimes. To the point where I'd prefer the shootings.
But as I said, the homicide rate in DC hit its lowest level in recent years. Obviously the problem isn't escalating, but has been steadily in decline.
Most likely.
Which makes it odd that the usual response to a lunatic killing people is to scream for tighter gun laws...
Actually I've found the usual response is for people to scream for more and more guns. After all, if more people had guns, it'd be more polite or something. Except this case, where the person acted in a cunning way, pretty much set up a situation where an armed response would be less effectual and more dangerous.
Cause they are not filled with crazy white American men.
Seriously, only Muslims and White American men do this kind of thing. I don't think there has ever been a Chinese-, African-, Japansese- American serial killer.
Maybe, that's why the US hates the Islamic nations so much.
21st Century Renaissance Man
europe is big, do you care telling where is that?
Note that concealed carry licenses in the USA require some level of training to get (exactly how much and what kind varies by State).
Note also that "training", or being part of a "militia" in no way implies that you're less likely to wig out and shoot someone.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
... I think it was his attempt at force.
I don't know if I would call one more dead person a much higher death toll.
In China this would have just been a kung-fu attack instead of a shooting.
There, FTFY.
> i never saw a gun
Liar!
You should see how well armed the cops are in Europe. They look like friggen soldiers. Or perhaps in Europe they just have actual soldiers crawling all over the place everywhere. Although that's no better than having all sorts of SWAT looking guys lurking about everywhere.
Either way, if you say you never saw a gun in Europe you're a liar.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Jesus! Are all Australians such poor writers? They must be.
You see... I can generalize just as well as you can. I can even do it with better grammar and spelling.
But in America, today, banning guns is a practical impossibility. Like it or not, there are just too many out there, and guess what? -- criminals won't give up theirs. (Interesting fact: it's ALREADY ILLEGAL for felons to own guns, but many do.) If you ban guns, all you're doing is creating a whole nation of helpless victims. Yes, you'd get to (as my friend says) "just arrest anyone you see with a gun", but unfortunately, by the time you SEE the gun, it's already too late.
Yes, it sucks when a guy shoots up a theater, or when people fly planes into buildings. But more people are killed by car crashes and obesity every year than mass killings like this. As much as everyone here hates the nanny state, laws about seatbelts and motorcycle helmets and happy meals and large sodas will probably save more lives than letting the TSA or HCI have their way. (Not that I'm a fan of either of the linked laws or organizations. Just sayin' they'd probably do more.)
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
He probably went in unarmed. Left through the exit, propping the door open, and returned.
Not Quick Draw. El Kabong could have though!
Wow, so 10% have seen someone killed? 31,159,191 is a lot of people to have actually seen someone killed first hand... And you're saying that's a good thing?
Blatant Advert: Android Apps!
would you like to add data points from a dozen other industrialized nations now?
thanks
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
yes, i know how well armed "the police" is, in some places they even carry machine guns. though that is not regular police but the army that is on duty to protect critical places like train stations, airports etc..
point is, i never saw a civilian carrying a gun nor i don't see the point of carrying one. i guess our mentality is indeed different over here.
Yes, most male adults have a gun, but they are military assault rifles, people keep them locked up except when doing target practice, and the ammo is counted when they go on their annual military service. People in Switzerland are not walking around the street with concealed handguns.
only the USA makes this person have easy access to a gun
so yeah: EASY ACCESS to the tool is the problem
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
That's not what I said at all I'm sure the number is closer to 99.9% but I'm sure someone rose would have taken offense at that also.
21st Century Renaissance Man
They don't have the force of law.
he was trying to terrorize people
what other description of the event applies? what other definition of terrorism applies?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Because the progressives believe that they can perfect their fellow man. Which is what makes them so dangerous. See: prohibition.
There were probably quite a few guns in the audience, this being Colorado and all.
But consider the tactical situation and that he was reportedly wearing a ballistic vest and riot helmet.
How do we know that nobody tried to shoot him?
Forget diamonds, copyright is forever.
easy access to it means more deaths
it's that simple
i don't understand why our freedom depends upon this tool
i thought it depended upon civil discourse. a gun has no place in civil society
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
A high degree of social welfare and a very supportive state. Also low population and basically being able to support their life styles by being the global purveyors of criminal banking, for organised crime, corrupt politicians, country pillaging dictators and of course tax cheats. Also cheeto munching, idiot box controlled, redneck who blame others for the failure are more an American characteristic rather than a Swiss characteristic. Of course suck up you idiot gun control laws and wallow in the resultant mass murders, there will be many, many more to come. So cosy up in the blood and dead bodies and feel good about corporate profits in arms sales, the insane asylum, you're in it.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Well I guess I can answer my own question - psychology is a nerd thing, I guess. I first thought it would say he designed his own equipment like Batman or something. No it just goes on about how another broken person went on a rampage to get a foot note in history so they will not be forgotten.
For the conspiracy people: Isn't it strange that this happens a few days before the ATT gun treaty the US is about to sign? Giving the government an example of why the ATT should be signed and how it will stop this type of thing from happening in the future. (yea I know it won't stop this type of thing but when would not telling the truth do).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Trade_Treaty
While I do understand that this is news and this is mostly a site for nerds, the whole article should just be modded "off-topic".
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
WHERE WAS BATMAN???
Right. NOTHING bad happens in countries where citizens don't have guns. Banning guns leads to ponies and rainbows every day.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Hundreds of people shooting wildly? So you think everyone would just close their eyes and spin around blasting away?
"Be absolutely sure you have identified your target beyond any doubt."
at least explains how man with two shotguns and in full armor can walk into cinema.
He could have done it by wearing a batman costume.
Your right to drink a beer can hardly be compared to your right to carry deadly weapons.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
Nope. We can't train ordinary people simple tactics and gun safety.
That right there is the problem. You have left off the "well regulated militia" part of the amendment, which would require gun owners to be well trained in the proper handling, storing, and use of firearms.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Abraham_Lincoln
I was referring to the guys that go on shooting sprees in public as nutjobs... not gun owners as nutjobs. I come from rural NY where it's unusual for a house to have fewer guns than people (although handguns are somewhat rare, most are higher powered rifles and shotguns). As far as I'm aware, we haven't had any gun-related violence in a very long time.
However, I would call the Swiss crazy just because of what the Swiss Guard is willing to wear in public.
The problem is, a nutjob can aquire a gun in the USA with ease. Im aware you have (varying by state) restrictions on buying handguns, but cant you pick up an automatic shotgun and ammo at Walmart along with your groceries and just need an ID-check to make sure you are 18?
When its harder to legally drive a car than it is to own a firearm, theres something wrong.
No one can say that. I personally haven't heard of this hypothetical situation happening at all. Do you have any links to an incident where individuals with a license to carry started shooting each other and bystanders because of a criminal that started shooting first?
The only example I can find is where a gun store was robbed and many individuals shot the robber and no one was injured but the robber. http://www.snopes.com/crime/dumdum/gunshop.asp yeah I'm lazy and snopes was first in google.
He probably did so because he is from a country/culture which:
a) Finds the frequent occurrence of these kinds of incidents in the US, and the rates of US gun crime in general, to be both notable and disturbing. And
b) Nevertheless views US society and culture as an aspirational or progressive model for their own.
If you're from another country, particularly an anglophone country, which looks to the US for leadership in many fields, the automatic response to these incidents is to blame a single, easily identifiable flaw---in this case gun ownership. Doing this allows them to be dismissed as a correctable or ignore-able aberration in a system otherwise worth emulating.
However, as you have pointed out, the reality is that gun ownership does not by itself explain why such things happen so frequently in the US. In reality, the reasons are probably much deeper and indeed systemic issues and pathologys within American society and culture which remain unresolved or even unrecognized. All of which would present a problem for anyone who is trying to order their own country in the model of the US.
The basic point is that society and culture is more important than gun ownership. But recognising this forces you to conclude that there is something wrong with US society and culture and this is a difficult thing for both Americans and for people who look to America for leadership. It's easier to blame gun licences than to reassess your own world view.
May the Maths Be with you!
In some states that is.
So http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704630004576248600469362440.html and http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-646126.html and http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g_eEAC03XCJX2eCY9xSIDd4qDzdA just didn't happen?
in North Korea.
Twitter: @dainsanefh
You can carry a gun in public in Switzerland. There are a few restrictions, such as that it has to be unloaded and can only be carried for the sake of transport (permits to carry a gun for the sake of self-defense can be hard to acquire), but it is done and I have myself seen it done (I saw people carrying a rifle on the public transport and in the street a few times - it's usually people on their way to the shooting range)
Now as to why Switzerland has less shootings: The USA have a 'rambo' kind of gun culture. Switzerland doesn't have that.
When you, as a society, start to tell people that guns are cool, and killing 'bad guys' (whoever they might be) is cool, you are also creating a society where individuals value human life less and believe that solving problems with guns is acceptable.
When a person like this suffers psychological or emotional problems, they're less likely to be able to dismiss the idea of killing somebody to feel better or solved their problems.
3 != 15+50
If you had a room of 50 people you'd be overrun
As someone who has his concealed carry (My job requires it). Emphasis in the course is on the ramifications of using the firearm, even against an individual like the jackarse in Colorado. Firing blindly in a smokey dark environment is the perfect way to ensure that you lose the ability to carry a gun and that's if nobody is harmed. Injure someone and it becomes a court case in which you stand a good chance of losing your freedom to the prison system for an extended duration! Kill someone innocent and that becomes almost a guarantee! Just drawing your sidearm in public becomes a situation that involves the police and can end up with a night (or longer) in jail.
As for WI law, you've had open carry for YEARS without licensing! And there hasn't been chaos in the streets.
So implying that if there had been CCW holders in the audience would have turned it into a worse situation is completely off base. Likely, they would've evacuated the theater and fallen back to a safe location like the rest of the people, barring a close encounter with the shooter, and then because he already had his weapons out, they would've stood only a marginally better chance than a knife carrying individual.
As for the people who are armed and 'scare' you, first, they are an 8 hour course, with shooting test. Second, depending on the course giver, the test can be harder than what your local police officer has had to go through.
I don't know what state you're talking about, but in Kentucky the sign doesn't carry any weight. All the store owner can do is ask you to leave. If you don't leave, they can call the cops. If you don't leave when the cops ask you to, then you can be charged with trespassing. Granted, buildings such as courthouses are another issue.
Sig: I stole this sig.
Story goes "sad news". Why is this sad news? Shouldn't story at least try for an objective neutral PoV?
If anything, world population has been reduced. That's a good thing.
You're ignoring the possibility that innocents would have likely been hit in the crossfire. A permit to carry doesn't mean the person carrying a sharpshooter or even necessarily a good shot. I know a person that carries a ridiculous hand-cannon he bought when they legalized concealed carry here recently and he's only fired the weapon a couple times total (he joked about how he could barely keep the thing on target due to the recoil and this is a weapon he carries for self-defense in public!). I actually feel less safe when I'm with him and he's packing, which is why I won't hang out with him when he is. He chalks it up to me being afraid of guns, but in actuality, I'm afraid of him with a gun...
In the right hands it's possible that someone could have taken this guy out and prevented this many deaths, but it's equally possible we could be talking about even more dead, with some of them tragically being killed by people trying to shoot the asshole that shot up the place. I doubt the families of those victims would have taken much comfort in the circumstances, regardless of who was pulling the trigger and why.
every country has senseless gun deaths, but not at the rate of the USA, because the USA makes guns too easy to get
now mod me troll and get back to worshipping your holy gun
sad, pathetic
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Cause they are not filled with crazy white American men.
Seriously, only Muslims and White American men do this kind of thing. I don't think there has ever been a Chinese-, African-, Japansese- American serial killer.
Maybe, that's why the US hates the Islamic nations so much.
Virginia Tech shooting...
Maybe when you know that everyone has a submachine gun in their closet at home, people are less likely to use guns as threats. Of course they likely don't have a huge culture that revolves around guns without necessarily the responsibility that comes with it.
Which makes it odd that the usual response to a lunatic killing people is to scream for tighter gun laws...
That's interesting, because all I've heard so far are a bunch of John Wayne wannabes saying that had they been in that theater with their 9mm handgun, they would have been able to kill the shooter. You know, the shooter who had them outgunned, outarmored, outpositioned, and didn't have to worry about firing around a theater full of panicking people.
I won't be surprised if this turns into a public outcry for stricter gun control, but I don't think it's likely. I'm sure this guy had a copy of Modern Warfare somewhere in his house; that's much easier to pin the blame on.
Even Quick Draw McGraw wouldn't have been able to stop him from killing a few people
No, but perhaps he wouldn't have been able to murder a few of the other people.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Colorado has no where near the population density of DC. As in most large cities, there are lots of poor people and gangs - both of which lead to more violence. Gang violence also isn't prevented by the fear of the victim having guns - you're not going to find someone spraying bullets out of a moving car stop to worry that the people they're shooting might shoot back.
Note:
Depending on the State, simply putting up a sign that says "No Guns Plz. Kthnxbye. " doesn't cut it.
In Texas ( I can't speak for Colorado ), in order to legally keep concealed carry pistols out of a place of business, a sign must be posted at every entrance to the building where it is easily seen. It MUST be in a very specific format ( letter height of one inch, contrasting color, English and Spanish language ) or the sign and prohibition of concealed weapons within the premises, is invalid.
That being said, according to what I've heard so far. This guy came in the back entrance ( no way he's going to kick in the emergency door considering they're usually metal framed, outward swinging, locked from the inside setup ) and tossed in a teargas or pepper-gas canister. He then opened fire.
He was supposedly wearing body armor and a gas mask to counter the canister he tossed in.
In this scenario, it's fish in a barrel.
Even IF there are folks in the crowd with decent training or skill, the teargas goes a long way in nullifying that. Those of you who have had the pleasure of standing in a cloud of that crap sans mask know exactly what I'm talking about. It's bad enough outside, it's REALLY bad inside a closed space. It's damn tough to draw, aim and fire at a target when your doubled over coughing your lungs out, your eyes burning so bad you can't see anything and your sinuses are trying to turn themselves inside out. Multiply that against the number of people in that theater and they didn't have much of a chance. I'm just surprised more didn't die.
It's also been said prohibitions of weapons in said places are pointless. They are 100% right.
The individual who is going to rob the bank, shoot up an establishment, or commit any other violent crime really doesn't give two shits about violating some weapons law in the process. The only thing the prohibition laws do is make it easier for the criminal as they know it is unlikely they will face any threat that can counter what they are bringing to the party.
Folks will try to blame the availability of guns for this atrocity. He could have easily waited till the show ended then run his car through the crowds of folks walking out. He could have used something far more lethal than teargas such as explosives or other chemical devices. The list of potential means to do harm to others is only limited by the human imagination. ( We're actually pretty damn good at coming up with ways to kill each other )
Well, it's worth pointing out that Canada has a much lower gun violence rate than either of those places, and there ARE strict gun laws in place. In fact, the gun laws are getting much stricter in an attempt to quash the gun violence that we DO have. There was recently a shooting here, and it was a big deal that TWO people were killed. 12 with 50 injured would be a national catastrophe and on the front page of every major newspaper.
The USA and Canada are different; I wouldn't suggest that you adopt our system per se, because your circumstances aren't the same. But it seems obvious to me that sufficiently strict gun laws CAN work if they have an appropriate societal context to exist.
Yup.
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_%282010%E2%80%932011%29"
Nope. We can't train ordinary people simple tactics and gun safety.
Like driving, which everyone complains about, just because you're driving doesn't make you any good at it. Just because you sat through 30 hours of school and had 30 - 60 hours of practice, doesn't mean you're not going to screw up, willfully, or through negligence, ignorance, or lack of wisdom.
-l
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
Ah Jesus. It should be noted that this kind of apologizing for gun-owners immediately after a gun massacre would only happen in America.
That's because the news media typically blames the gun instead of the criminal. Just wait - they'll talk more about the gun than the shooter, especially if it's an "automatic" or "assault weapon" (neither of which actually exist in the U.S. outside of military and police). So that immediately puts law abiding gun owners on the defensive.
Worse, politicians will use this as justification to push more laws that wouldn't have prevented the tragedy to begin with.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/us/colorado-theater-shooting/index.html
"President Barack Obama, who was notified of the shooting on Friday morning by his homeland security adviser, John Brennan,"
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2012/07/northeast_portland_man_who_str.html
"Judge acquits John Brennan on indecent exposure charge"
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
In CC states, what percentage of business have a no guns policy and what percentage of those business will allow you to check a gun at the door?
And finally, it should be noted that even including this incident, the murder rate in Colorado is lower than it is in Washington DC, where owning a firearm is essentially illegal....
Actually it should be noted that, ignoring RATE, there are more murders in Washington DC (population 600k or so) than in Colorado (population 5.1 million or so) in a typical year.
I put it in the same category as similar paradoxical factoids -- for instance, that the states with the most stringent marriage-defense laws tend to have highest rate of out-of-wedlock births. The laws are an attempted reaction against an existing social problem (perhaps a mal-adaptive, but an attempt at a protective response nonetheless); states with laxer laws don't have lower rates because of their stance, it is their lower rate that prevents development of cultural pressures to demand governmental action.
Unfortunately, in either of the two cases, ideology locks leaders into a fixed and unhelpful response.
would you like to put up a dozen more data points from other industrialized countries with stricter gun control laws?
thanks
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Actually, unless legislated for the venue, those signs do not mean anything for a CC. The sign is just expressing the policy of the business and holds no power over CC permit holders.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
have less senseless gun deaths
end of common sense observation
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Was visibility *totally* obscured for everyone? It's possible someone would have gotten a clear shot on the guy before he killed and injured most of the people he did.
Unfortunately the night vision scope on my AR15 makes it difficult to stuff into my pants.
:wq
I live in Denver and this is the first I've heard of this. Sounds like bullshit to me.
... how much are killed in traffic every day?
The police shoot random unarmed people just for moving their hands. Being shot by friendly fire is far preferable to that, so get back to me about gun control after you've disarmed the police.
Citation?
The data bellow , clearer shows a conspiracy from The Avengers producers to prevent Batman to get even richer.
The Avengers
Studio Marvel Studios
Distributed by Walt Disney Pictures
Budget $220 million
Box office $1,458,170,615
The Dark Knight Rises
Studio Legendary Pictures,Syncopy Films,DC Comics
Distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures
Budget $250 million
Expecting Box office +$2,000,000,000
Average person is not a murderer. If they panic they are more likely not to draw the gun at all than to start blasting in every direction.
Yah, strict gun-control laws CAN work. And complete lack of gun-control laws CAN work too. It's not like there's a correlation between gun control laws and murder rates - Louisiana is pretty free about gun control, and has a relatively high (by US standards) murder rate, Colorado is just as free and has a relatively low (by US standards) murder rate. Washington DC and Chicago have some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, and some of the highest murder rates.
And on and on and on.
For that matter, over the last couple decades, gun laws have, in most parts of the USA, been relaxed quite a lot - and the murder rate has declined steadily while this was happening.
Ultimately, the problem is cultural. Fixing the cultural problem doesn't require removing the guns.
Though it probably requires removing the Prohibition-type drug laws that seem to spark much of the gun violence (just like the real Prohibition sparked some of the worst gun violence in US history).
BLOCKQUOTE>There was recently a shooting here, and it was a big deal that TWO people were killed. 12 with 50 injured would be a national catastrophe and on the front page of every major newspaper.
Trust me, this will make (probably already has made) the front page of every major newspaper in the USA.
And every place I've ever lived would have had a banner headline if two people had been killed in the same event.
Mind you, I've never lived in Chicago, Washington DC, or New York City....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
The "training" for my concealed carry permit was a 1 hour online video and a 20 question multiple choice test. I may be a crazy right wing gun owning nut, but even I think that was too easy. A hunting license (for deer) is a whole weekend course.
That said, we're statistically in the the most law abiding category, but I'd like to know that we've at least proven we can hit a target.
:wq
In 2008 the DC gun ban was struck down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
The provisions in the Bill of Rights is not open for debate, it simply enumerates rights that the government has no power to infringe/remove/curtail. It is the Supreme Court's duty to prevent any substantial infringement of any rights listed in that amendment. For all intents and purposes the Bill of Rights IS the constitution. The first three articles are just as valuable in establishing a government but wane in importance next to human rights. One of those rights is the right to protect myself *and* to remain a threat to the government. We live in a VERY safe society so it easy now to get all huffy about firearm ownership, but to make them unavailable to anyone for personal protection is inhumane. Being driven to use a firearm is a terrible thing, most of the time the mere presence of one is enough to establish the security of a person. No issue arises in that case and so you do not have the data for which to say that it prevented an altercation. A catch 22. But we do have incidences like this for which there is no answer or solution. If a person is willing to give up their life to hurt others then you will be hard pressed to stop or limit the damage in any case.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Then why do we spend so much energy making rules?
Because politicians feel they have to make rules to be perceived as "doing something".
If a politician spent several years of time cleaning up existing laws (and removing "duplicates" or old laws against carrying an ice cream cone in your pocket) so they were more logical and readable to regular people, they'd be seen as not having "done" anything during that time. Add to that the fact that there are so many special interest groups, and you get lots of laws passed just to help win some votes.
In colorado, one must take a class in order to get the concealed permit. While a single class is nothing compared to real military training, they usually cover "don't shoot in crowded areas where you can't even see your target."
While having a gun might not have done much good in this circumstance, it seems unfair to assume that any carrier would automatically just start shooting randomly.
Note also that "training", or being part of a "militia" in no way implies that you're less likely to wig out and shoot someone.
Yes. statistically in fact, I think you are actually MORE likely to do it.
Statistics show a citizen with a CCW is safer than an LEO, in that regard.
If I had to wager a guess on why, it'd be that citizen training is, "don't shoot" while LEO training is, "always be ready to shoot, quickly".
No, there they kill for a reason. In the US people kill mainly because they're societies rejects and because they have a problem committing to reality.
Says who? Having a gun doesn't automatically make a person start shooting randomly, when they can't even see a target.
This guy was going to kill people with or without guns, so before all you people who don't believe in the second amendment go after someone's constitutionally protected right to own a firearm you better think about those other constitutional protections that you enjoy which the other side of the isle will be equally willing to take away. This is the price we pay for living in a somewhat "free" society.
Remove the right to legally own guns and you still have a crazy person intent on killing innocents. He'd just obtain the weapons illegally, or choose another method like a car or homemade explosives that can do just as much or more damage.
Maybe when you know that everyone has a submachine gun in their closet at home, people are less likely to use guns as threats. Of course they likely don't have a huge culture that revolves around guns without necessarily the responsibility that comes with it.
Somehow I don't think that this particular person was worrying about what people had at home.
The interesting thing about guns is that there is really no such thing as "outgunned" - one shot can kill a man, whether from a pistol, a rifle, a shotgun, or a machinegun. And having a pistol/rifle/shotgun/machinegun doesn't actually protect you from the other guy's pistol/rifle/shotgun/machinegun.
If *I* had been there (which I wouldn't have been, even if this had happened where I live, since I never go to opening night movies - too damn crowded), and I had been carrying (which I wouldn't have been, since I see no real need to do so), I would probably not have taken a shot (darkness, smoke, the movie itself interfering with both vision and hearing, etc). But if I had had a pistol, and a clear shot, I would have used it, and he would have stopped shooting (yes, a bullet-resistant vest would have meant I couldn't kill him with a shot to center of mass, but I don't use a 9mm, and either a .40 or .45 (which I do use) would have put him on his ass).
Why not? The Democrats have used every single shooting that made national news in the last half century as an excuse for stricter gun control....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Why do people keep posting this nonsense? This is the third comment I have seen that assumes that owning a gun somehow makes a person stupid. People with guns on them wouldn't automatically start shooting randomly into a crowd of civilians when they can't even see an assailant. Sheesh.
I see, why are so many of the rules adhered to, oh fount of wisdom?
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
Yep.
And DC still makes it as difficult as possible to own a firearm.
There are places where it is more difficult to own a gun than DC, but not many in the USA.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
This person who pulled this "tactical" attack meant to ensure that people would die no matter what. He certainly planned on someone having a firearm on them and perhaps he was worried about getting shot by police as well. You are right, a CC holder may or may not have stopped him or limited the damage, and it is not really their job to do so. Like I mentioned, the attacker had already planned this and had contingencies in place (smoke grenade, bullet-proof vest, multiple weapons of varying utility). Although, getting hit with a vest on is still going to stop the perpetrator. I'm very good with a firearm, but I don't know if I would have tried to stop him unless he directly threatened me or I had a clear shot.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Where was this guy? http://boingboing.net/2012/07/19/elderly-gentleman-shoots-armed.html -- That link there shows a video of an elderly man thwarting an armed robbery in an internet cafe. No guarantees, but it sure could've made a difference at the theater.
Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
Because the laws did not seem to stop Breivik.
Gun laws did not seem to stop the Columbine shooters either - they did not obtain their guns legally.
Murica
So, the obvious solution is to outlaw large cities.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
This reminds me of the Hunter Safety and Education Course that we took as kids. One segment was the "Shoot or Don't Shoot" video exam. The joke was to just say "Don't Shoot" for every example and you'd score well. It was a bit like those old drivers ed videos that were designed to terrify you.
I thought it said he kicked the door in?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Hmm, Washington DC (low gun ownership rates, high homicide rate), Colorado, (high gun ownership rates, low homicide rates), Switzerland (extremely high gun ownership rates, low homicide rates).
I fail to see the correlation. Or perhaps you were carefully ignoring the differences among the States?
Note that the USA is an interesting test of gun ownership/homicide correlations in that we have 51 different sets of gun laws (not counting individual cites such as Chicago and New York) and one reasonably uniform culture (while US culture is in no way "uniform", we're more alike than, say, a Swiss and a Brit).
Note that in the USA, homicide rates are all over the map - high in some places, low in others.
Note that firearms ownership in the USA is all over the map - high in some places, low in others.
And some of the places with high gun ownership have low homicide rates, and some don't. However, none of the places with high gun ownership rates have homicide rates as high as DC. Or Chicago. Or New York City....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Some guy in China went into a child care center and killed half a dozen people with an axe a few days ago. Your right, these kind of things don't happen with guns in those countries.
love is just extroverted narcissism
Depends on the jurisdiction. In TX there is a legally defined format the sign must have or it isn't enforceable. They can have a sign that says "No guns please." and if you carry, the worst that can happen is they can kick you off the property.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Yes, it happened quickly because the shooter knew that if he continued it would have cost him his own life, as highly trained well armed people were likely on the way--fast.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
What the FUCK does this submission have to do with nerds and tech?! And don't give me "because it's batman", like 90% of the audience going to see Batman aren't just regular every day non-nerds.
How about something like this?
A bunch of street thugs decided to take potshots against each other, with civilians in between.
Now add a situation where there's gas obscuring the view, and tons of people with guns exchanging fire. Maybe you can identify the "bad guy", but what's to stop you from blowing the brains out of somebody else either
a) by accident
b) mistakening him/her for the malicious shooter
You're right on all but one point: If a law abiding citizen with CCW gets caught in a private venue with a no-guns policy, they'll be asked to leave, at the worst. If they refuse to leave, the cops will come, and they'll be arrested for trespassing--it's not really any different than violating a store's "no shirt, no shoes no service" policy. That's actually pretty universal across the US--excepting a few states which completely ban carry inside of bars and liquor stores even if you're not partaking in the alcohol, in which case simply being on premises can be enough for arrest.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
Watch out, someone just flipped an ash on your straw man.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
And yet, the murder rate in Virginia is 1/3 that of DC.
Of course, Maryland is right there too. But wait, Maryland has a murder rate that is 1/2 that of DC.
It should also be noted that it is illegal to buy a firearm in a State that you are not a legal resident of.
Which means that anyone from DC buying a firearm in Virginia is a criminal, by definition.
So, why is that DC has a high murder rate compared to its neighbors? After all, if it's easy to get a gun in Virginia/Maryland to use in DC, it's even easier (and legal to boot) to get one in Virginia/Maryland to use in Virginia/Maryland....
Just keep the above in mind when you mix in the debate over gun control.
Trust me, I do keep the above in mind. So, you'll be getting back to me to explain why the murder rate in DC is higher than in Virginia and Maryland, right?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Because decent human beings are decent.
See also Internalization.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Switzerland (extremely high gun ownership rates, low homicide rates).
I fail to see the correlation.
That's because you didn't care to look at the link I gave you, where Switzerland comes directly behind the US in terms of homicide and suicide rate.
And regarding the US-only statistics you refer to it is equally blatant that you didn't read the rest of the post either.
Denial does not change facts.
If that's the case, I'd imagine that the theatre is going to face a rather serious safety investigation and/or lawsuit.
That was my question as well. Most emergency exists don't have handles or even lock cylinders on the outside, and they are usually heavy insulated metal doors with heavy metal frames which only open outwardly. I'm not buying that he was able to kick in that sort of door easily before someone watching the movie complained about the noise to theater management. I know those crash-bar alarms can be deactivated; I believe there's usually a key switch somewhere on the bar. Also, I think most of those door alarms are battery-operated, and I've heard somewhere that batteries do lose their charge occasionally.
Unfortunately, you are right that many who conceal carry do not put in the time required to be decent with their weapon. That is not the only "defense" though to having a well-armed populace.
If it were the "norm" for a large number of people to carry, and such a thing was common knowledge, it might have made him think twice about performing his cowardly act to begin with. If everyone and their dog carried a gun, would he really have felt that much more powerful walking in with a couple rifles and body armor, knowing that perhaps 50-60 of those that he was terrorizing carried?
Why didn't someone in that theater with a lawful right-to-carry firearm stand up and put an end to that? People must make themselves secure! Your government WILL NOT DO IT for you.
$ whatis msft msft: nothing appropriate
Why not? The Democrats have used every single shooting that made national news in the last half century as an excuse for stricter gun control.
I don't consider a handful of politicians starting a (usually) futile effort to pass stricter gun control laws to be a public outcry. While that's all but guaranteed to happen, I'm assuming the public outcry will be against some movie/music/video game/book/etc that the shooter was obsessed with. I think the "think of the children" crowd will only go after guns if they can't find something else to blame. Some people just can't accept the fact that there are crazy people in the world; it has to be *something's* fault, and that something will almost always fall within their preconceived notions.
The interesting thing about guns is that there is really no such thing as "outgunned" - one shot can kill a man, whether from a pistol, a rifle, a shotgun, or a machinegun.
True, but it certainly makes it a lot easier for them to shoot you before you're able to shoot them.
If *I* had been there, I would probably not have taken a shot
I don't think *any* sane person would have taken a shot in that situation, based on what I've been hearing third and forth hand.
I read in another article that Aurora is about 13 miles from Columbine, where two gunmen killed several people in 1999.
In a dark smoke filled space where likely no one could be sure where the gunfire was coming from, it's likely it would just have meant more casualties.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Good point. My right to drink a beer isn't explicitly constitutionally protected. It's only indirectly constitutionally protected by my right to carry deadly weapons.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
The Wikipedia entry for "The Dark Knight Rises" was updated with a section discussing the shooting shortly after it occured--that entry has now been removed entirely, as well as the citations for the information included.
Oh please, that's far from bullet proof.
It's the rampant amount of guns! It's the gays in the military! It's the moral decline of America! It's because we don't pray in schools! It's because of the liberals! It's because of the conservatives! It's the atheists! It's pornography! No personal responsibility, too much personal responsibility! Bad parenting! Schools! Bullies.
Here's one that's not really being mentioned: hate and fear. That's where it starts. How does it get fed? Look at the shit above. Individually, we each have a certain amount of hate. And fear. Some Jesus people really hate the atheists. Some of the atheists really hate the Jesus people. Conservatives hate the liberals, the liberals hate conservatives. After that, it's just details. Some love posting stuff to make the other side feel dumb. Some will yell stuff at the other side, to make them feel dumb. Think of the vitriol that gets spewed on /. over the silliest, mindless things. Insults get hurled.
Human beings being what they are, some have a hard time understanding where their hate comes from - and how to deal with it.
Some of us are even just plain old crazy.
So, it starts with being angry and afraid. Really, how much personal power do you have to change your situation? Most of us are stuck, and need to figure out ways to cope - we chat with friends, etc.
Sadly, some get stuck. Backed into a corner.
Then they pop. Individual acts of hate like this are just the tip of becoming like Israel and Palestine. When enough tip, the US is no longer.
It is enough training to establish that you are mindful of your weapon, know exactly how to use it, and are well acquainted with its unsettling destructive power. It does not qualify you to wield a weapon in a "tactical" situation.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
...and replaced with a section about the release in the time it took me to post here.
I know, right? If only it were socially acceptable for me to carry my AK with me... dang. Wait, if I used a trench coat, could conceal carry it. And interestingly enough, it is legal for me to do so in my state. Hmm, but once again, social stigma.
http://denverteaparty.ning.com/profile/JimHolmes
Same guy?
You are assuming we have the power to make our own laws. We don't. That power has been ceded to politicians.
With all the comments here linking to massacres elsewhere, and posting anecdotes, I'm surprised no one (that I've seen) has linked to epidemiological data.
Per capita, does the United States do worse on gun deaths than other Western democracies?
The best data we have says (drumroll)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Yes!
So everyone who will be hopping up and down yelling "guns don't kill people, car crashes/people/the government does/do...", science says THE GUNS ARE A PROBLEM IN THE US.
Crazy guy does it: we must protect our right to bear arms, and keep selling them to the mentally ill.
Terrorist does it: we can torture, detain indefinitely, wiretap everyone.
No it's indirectly protected because anyone can do it and most fundamentally believe it a right. There's no chance that the amendment would have been passed if it was possible to foretell what it would lead to.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
The gunman broke into the theatre via the emergency exit. That's not going solve the problem.
Brings the question whether the lights should have been immediately turned on after gunfire was heard and/or if that would've made the situation more or less dangerous. I'd think that after a fire/emergency-door/exit was opened, it shouldn't by default have been very dark. But you do make a fair point. Of course, though, with any further speculation, I think I can predict the general destination of this conversation. And while valid and interesting from multiple points of view, probably best to resign now on my part. I guess I'll only say that I'd prefer to see security placed more in the hands of citizens and not so exclusively into the single indifferent fist of authority, which I predict, is where we are all headed.
Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
If there were zero stars I would do that.
So, you'll be getting back to me to explain why the murder rate in DC is higher than in Virginia and Maryland, right?
As a european who have spent the last 3.5 years in the DC metro area, I have my ideas why the murder rate is so high in the DC area. Racial segregation and poverty, with no chance for social ascension, effectively creating ghettos, play a key role. you can bet on it, the murder rate is not driven up by the murders in Georgetown...
Of course murder rate is lower both in Maryland and Virginia, the parts of these states neighboring DC are mostly where the more well-off part of the population lives in the suburbs and in general they face much less crap. Still, you might see a real difference between Prince Georges and Montgomery counties of MD, for example.
From your I guess you are for the "right to bear arms". For long I have not cared. Since I have seen a ~25 years old father of three in Virginia walking around with a gun in his belt at the kid's playground of a Burger King . Since that I just think these people are idiots. Yes, pick up a gun when you go hunting or when you go shooting to the range. Otherwise, when you spend long periods of time in public, there is no reason to have one on you. Point.
Chuckles.. 3 continents combined only 13 school shooting. What's the total count for Aaamerica alone ? may those in power learn to clean the system at root. General public in america (the ones born/raised here) glorify and sugar coat government fed unrealistic information (right/left or a stupid tea party opinion) from day 1. Go figure! "Comic-Con brings in $163 million per year for the city of San Diego! There’s talk of Comic-Con leaving San Diego. For the sake of their local economy, they’d better hope the nerds stay in their fare city." http://www.celebritynetworth.com/articles/entertainment-articles/how-much-does-comic-con-make-for-san-diego/ my two cents..focus should be in teaching math this could potentially assist in "done the math enough to know the danger of second guessing"....
Nice article, but I disagree with the premise somewhat:
Putting aside the obvious objection that poking fun at the powerful isn’t the same as bluntly confronting them, it’s important to give Stewart and Colbert their due.
They do in fact bluntly confront the powerful. Did you see the white house press correspondents dinner that Colbert hosted? No really, watch this.
Watch the audience, the looks on their faces. Some are in total shock. Others look like they're ready to kill him.
That took some serious balls.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Potentally? Yes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8650626.stm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2010-03-23-china-stabbing-eight_N.htm
This was not an act of "terrorism". The shooter was caucasian and does not have a foreign sounding name, so, by definition, this cannot be called terrorism. Apparently.
SOME states (maybe most -- I'm not sure) require training but not all. Washington State, for example, does not mandate training to obtain a concealed pistol license.
My 2 cents on this thing is the danger of those trend setting Coloradans...Columbine set off a worldwide wave of copycat carnage and mayhem; the novel angle
here is the overt targeting of "entertainment". You reap what you sow; did the comicCon culture inadvertently create misfit class of individual who identify with the Super Villain? The promotional campaign for "Batman" now IS the promotional campaign for these violent and evil acts.
I kind of wish Frank Miller had never made Daredevil cool.
All of a sudden typically left-wing Slashdot turns hard right for this thread. Hm.
will any one who took a video of this get bootleg changes?
>Go to movie premier
>Have to deal with jerk offs and assholes who yell and clap at the movie
>Baby starts crying and cries through most of it
>End of movie
>Get shot
>Pirate movie
>Stay home
>Watch it on HDTV
>Pause it whenever I have to piss
>Have a good time
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
It's no coincidence that the Century 16 Cinema in Aurora, CO, where this shooting took place is less than 21 miles from Columbine High School where on April 20, 1999, gunfire killed 12 students and 1 teacher. Suburbs of Denver, Colorado are getting a reputation for being the Wild West.
-=- Many seek good nights and lose good days.
Combat is entirely different than range time, but I'd rather take my chances surrounded by armed citizens. Otherwise, the criminal is 100% in control of the situation. The fact that these things go on until the shooter decides to stop is clear indication that people need to be ready to defend themselves. If the police show up at all, they'll be waiting outside until it's over.
I've never in my life fired at a moving target, but I'd rather have the chance than to just sit there and wait for my turn.
:wq
Or some plastic explosives, fragmentation grenades or maybe nerve gas. And yet for some insane reason those are still regulated. Why bother? If someone wants grenade or dozen, he is going to get it anyway.
Do gun nuts really see world as set of binary options? You don't have to make access to guns impossible, just make it hard. Then only worst criminals will have one and you are pretty unlikely to meet one. Much better situation than every local hooligan, two-bit mugger and meth addict running around with a gun.
Why would being around a law-abiding citizen who has a gun scare you?
I can't speak for the OP, but the reason why it scares me is because my grandmother had a gun. She had no idea how to use it, but she kept it loaded under her pillow at night. She was paranoid that someone would come in and try to attack her. I'm not kidding--she was so paranoid that, even with a full set of drapes and blinds on her windows, she used to turn off the light to change clothes at night because she though someone might be peeking through the window. (Why? I guess because nothing attracts peeping toms like an 80-year-old woman changing clothes, I guess. I don't know.)
She once came home and told us a story about how she was at the mall, and a black man followed her out. (Keep in mind that she grew up in pre-segregation South, and yes, she fit the stereotype you can imagine that goes along with that.) It rattled her so badly that when she got to the car, she got her gun out of the glove compartment and held it up so that he knew she was armed, and it worked, because apparently he changed direction to give her car a wide berth. Of course, I'm sitting there thinking that she's pulled a gun on an innocent shopper and that when he saw some crazy old lady pull out a gun, he didn't want to have anything to do with her. It's probably a good thing too, because if he had not been paying attention and walked too close to her car, she probably would have killed or seriously injured him. (Or herself, or at least done some nasty property damage.)
So why would being around a law-abiding citizen who has a gun scare me? Because I know that there are, practically speaking, absolutely zero controls on who gets guns. There are no requirements for training, no evaluation of responsibility, little to no ability to track where weapons come from if one is used in a crime, and thanks to organizations like the NRA, virtually no control over the types of weapons those law-abiding citizens can own.
I used to be pretty staunchly in favor of banning all guns. These days, my stance is what I consider a bit more practical and well-thought out. I'm not for banning guns completely, but I am for measures such as requiring training and evaluation that has to be periodically repeated before issuing a permit to allow people to legally have guns, implementing methods of tracking guns, requiring all guns sold adhere to certain standards of safety, and restricting the sale and distribution of the types of assault weapons that are designed for killing massive numbers of people quickly. Because the fact is that I'm MUCH more afraid of well-meaning--but stupid and untrained moron--hurting or killing me with a gun than some nutjob opening fire in a theater. My grandmother passed away around 10 years ago so she's no longer a threat, but living with her as a kid was a bit of an exercise in terror, thinking that if I had to go to the bathroom in the middle of the night I might get mistaken for a burglar and shot. And in my day I've met and known a lot of people like her, people who are grossly irresponsible with guns.
And THAT is why being around law-abiding citizens who have guns scares me.
that if something else had happen, people would have been saying something else?
Profound. Deep. Insightful indeed.
now mod me down, gun lovers
this comment of mine was at a 5 rating, with 15 responses:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2993071&cid=40711611
then suddenly it shot to 0
how did that happen?
ideologically motivated moderation is alive and well on slashdot
but you won't know about it. because you won't see this comment
it will be moderated into oblivion by those who think the second amendment is a religious text, and all who oppose their quasireligion need to be squelched
weep for my country. it is held hostage by idiots who think guns are the answer, and loony tunes, hot heads, and gang bangers continue to practice their mayhem on innocents, enabled by the gun lovers
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Holy crap thats just wrong - you havent looked at gun related crime statistics in NY before and after the laws were imposed. Ignorance is bliss...
Not in Pennsylvania. We have an affirmative concealed carry law. The state has to prove that you shouldn't have a concealed carry license, so unless you've got an absurd number of parking tickets, or have a felony under your belt, you can have the permit.
But I'm guessing the Dark Knight wasn't among the 12.
What world do you live where someone with a concealed carry license doesn't have any "real" firearms handling experience? Do you not understand how incredibly easy it is to become at least semi-proficient with shooting a modern firearm? The reason so many states have such low requirements for their classes is because it is incredibly easy to pick out a man-sized target from 10 yards and put rounds into center mass of that target.
And while a panicked crowd is going to create sighting problems, for you to sit there and say that someone lining up their shots to try to stop the shooter would somehow make things worse is just laughable on its face.
Just because you're terrified of guns and have no experience with them doesn't mean that those of us who do have that experience should be deprived of our right and ability to defend ourselves (and others).
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
No Spandex (tm) suit, no dyed hair, not even a getaway plan.
And isn't Colorado one of the states you can concealed carry? Where was the gunfight at the Dark Knight corral?
mark "guns make us *so* much safer"
The fact that you're modded Flamebait right now says a lot about the direction Slashdot has taken over the years.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Has it ever occurred to you that you might just deserve to be modded down into oblivion, maybe for using murder to push an unpopular political agenda and demonizing those who disagree with you?
Guns aren't legal in ALL contexts and marijuana is legal under SOME contexts. Also enforcement is very subjective, which is the real problem. America has a serious decision-making problem.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/us/colorado-mall-shooting.html#commentsContainer
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
We better not provide better education for Americans though, that would be OMG SOCIALISM!
Sadly the militia was not meant to become part of the government. Now if you try and form a militia you'll be getting a visit from the ATF, and the FBI. The only allowed militias are the Reserves.
i in fact agree that gun toting individuals have and will continue to save lives
it is just that for every experience like yours, there are 10x more experiences of tragedy due to easy access to guns
therefore, guns should be strictly controlled to prevent needless bloodshed
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Their "army" is the reason no one wants to attack them. When you have every single male citizen of a population (even a small one) as part of the militia, it makes you a rather unattractive target.
An armed citizenry is (would be) a deterrent and a repercussion to people performing these mass shootings and acts of violence. Look at the old man who prevented a robbery of that internet cafe. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9RKMtLcacU
People types like James Holmes or Jared Loughner who commit these types of crimes are why the death penalty makes sense. They are beyond redemption on this world.
For every benefit you receive a tax is levied. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Its interesting to me how many arguments against gun control essentially follow the following line of reasoning,
1) Mentally unstable / criminal / dangerous individuals exist.
2) Mentally unstable / criminal / dangerous individuals will use whatever means available to inflict harm.
3) Therefore, controlling the means of harm won't do any good.
This argument is of course ludicrous. Tools do matter. Human beings are a species that have co-evolved with the tools we've built over time to get on in the world, and tools are, for all practical purposes, an extension of who we are. They aren't really purely inert extensions of our behavior, they recursively influence our behavior in sometimes counter-intuitive or unpredictable ways.
The machine gun, for instance, is the most deadly weapon ever invented. The malicious intent behind these massacre's might not have changed over the years, but the means to inflict increasing magnitudes of harm has changed, and that matters.
Not that I am really for / against gun control per se, but I think the arguments on either side should at least make sense.
I grew up in a military family. My step-father was career Army, my brother and his wife are both Marines, and not only that, but pretty much my entire extended family comes from rural settings where guns are ubiquitous and I spent many a summer on a farm. I've been around guns almost my entire life. I'm not afraid of guns, I'm afraid of the number of idiots out there that think they're fucking Rambo because they took an 8-hour course and fired at a few paper targets.
My brother carries a piece and I don't feel nervous around him because he not only has been trained how to use the weapon, but he's actually used weapons in combat while in Iraq during the initial invasion back in '03, as has his wife. My step-father did multiple tours, both in Desert Shield/Storm and Iraqi Freedom (not to mention the random ops he was involved in down in Central and South America in the 80's and 90's doing who knows what), and he also has combat experience. My extended family were born and raised with guns and are avid hunters (not to mention a few police officers in the mix as well). They've got the experience.
Contrast that with the idiot friend of mine that found out that they were legalizing concealed carry here in Wisconsin and treated it like a goddamned Xbox 360 achievement to unlock, went out and bought a ridiculous hand-cannon that he can barely handle because he wanted a 'Deagle' just like the ones in the FPSs he likes to play that he's shot a handful of times, and is now looking to pick up an AR-15, because the hand-cannon wasn't enough for the "defense" of his apartment with papier-mâché walls. I would trust my step-father or my brother with that weapon, but him? Absolutely not.
The law doesn't make a distinction for fucking retards getting a gun for all the wrong reasons, and I don't know how it ever would without impinging upon the rights of those mature enough to handle a weapon, but to pretend like it's not a worthy concern and stems only from a fear of guns is ridiculous. I'm betting you yourself know people in your own life that you know should not be carrying a weapon that are legally in their rights to do so because there is nothing to stop them from applying and receiving the permits. Hell, I'll make it even easier: How often do you see people driving that you cannot believe they actually managed to get a fucking license? They fulfilled the training requirements, they took the test and passed, but they still drive like a fucking retard? Surely there are gun owners out there that fit the same criteria, and if you deny that, you're just being deliberately obtuse.
I thought the Swiss Guard worked for the Vatican, and that the Renaissance-style uniforms were for the tourists. And even the ones without guns have those nasty ax/pike weapons, so I wouldn't play fashion police with them.
Even so, the Zug massacre still happened in Switzerland, where a man walked into a government building and started shooting people.
would you have liked to be armed or unarmed?
> We have laws in place, but we have this other thing called a Constitution, which is clearly designed to allow each person to enjoy their rights as a citizen of this country.
But I assume you are OK with other laws that override your rights? So stricter gun laws could be a good thing.
Because I don't think you go like "DDT is only a tool, if you know how much to use it's harmless and my (still living) kids are just fine, and I can drive 120 mph with no problem but now the government won't let me do either. My constitutional rights!!"
Why do NRA-fans never say:
"Well it's sad that it is so easy to buy a gun, and the amount of uncontrolled arms in circulation is scary. As a gun nut I wouldn't mind jumping through more hoops and red tape to get a weapon to have my addiction at the shooting range. It might not have stopped this lunatic, but it sure would be a step in the right direction."
And for the record; I would rather face a guy with swords or throwing knifes than a rifle.
Yes indeed, the douchebag/reasonable person ratio is different in Switzerland than it is in the USA.
If guns made you safe, Afghanistan would be the safest place in the world. Obviously when you compare Denver to Washington D.C. in terms of gun related murder, you're comparing differences in racial makeup, poverty, and the culture of the city, which contribute far more to gun violence than gun ownership.
The modern Swiss Guard is primarily the ceremonial guard for the Vatican, but they are soldiers from Switzerland (also single, male, between age 19 and 30, and Catholic). Although their regular uniforms are fairly normal (if a bit antiquated looking), their ceremonial uniforms make them look like they work at a vaguely Renaissance themed amusement park. I suppose it's sort of like the big burly biker with the heart tattoo with 'Mom' in it. Giggle at them from afar, but you wouldn't say anything to their face.
According to Colorado and NY police, the guy had red hair and was comporting himself as the Joker. And I think all of us geeks can agree that this is something the Joker would do: set off a shooting massacre and then watch society tear itself apart rather than focus on him. Ideas can become real, and I believe the Joker killed Heath Ledger, and I think the Joker probably did kill those people in Aurora. If the reports are true and this guy wanted to become the Joker, then he succeeded.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
This particular situation was very complex, it's not a good example.
OTOH there's plenty of situations where a bit of range time and some common sense is enough training to do the right thing, eg. you hear somebody breaking into your house at night so you put yourself in a position covering the top of the stairs.
There's lots of things you can do, eg. make a course on basic situations a mandatory part of the concealed carry license.
The only thing I'm sure of is that gun prevention laws in a country which is already *full* of guns isn't going to make anything better.
No sig today...
The Swiss also have a very unified culture and the racial diversity of the population is limited. The per capita income is also very high, violent crime is low. And they like to ice skate.
Take away every gun in Switzerland and the above won't change.
IANAL, and clearly YANAL, because that is just plain wrong. The signs have varied impact depending on the state. In South Carolina, the sign must meet be posted conspicuously, meet specific size requirements and have a specific phrase and artwork or it carries no legal weight. In North Carolina, the requirement is merely "... notice that carrying a concealed handgun is prohibited by the posting of a conspicuous notice ..." In both cases violators can be arrested for carrying a weapon illegally - essentially carrying without a permit since a valid notice supersedes one's concealed carry permit. In Kentucky, violating the notice is not a criminal act. Unless you know the letter of the law in a particular state, you should assume that any prohibition has legal weight.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
Easy, buddy. No need to call someone a liar, if you find something hard to believe. I really hope you act like this only on the web.
I don't remember seeing a single gun when I was in Europe either. I don't even remember seeing LEO except in airports.
In a dark theater, even if there was some smoke, you could probably see the flash from the gun going off easily enough.
I doubt it would have been terribly difficult to shoot back, although the element of surprise was apparently in his favor.
But the people who are trying to blame guns in this circumstance are silly. He could have just as easily tossed in a pipe bomb or some other home-made device and done even more damage.
At 9:20 a.m. EDT, the @NRA_Rifleman account, which describes itself as "an official journal of the National Rifle Association," tweeted: "Good morning, shooters. Happy Friday! Weekend plans?"
"The reason so many states have such low requirements for their classes is because it is incredibly easy to pick out a man-sized target from 10 yards and put rounds into center mass of that target."
That's one reason. The other main reason is the "who decides?" scenario: make the requirements too strict and you would be de-facto limiting availability to only ex-military and the professionally trained. But that isn't workable, because the whole point is that citizens are supposed to be armed, not just the police and military.
"Contrast that with the idiot friend of mine that found out that they were legalizing concealed carry here in Wisconsin and treated it like a goddamned Xbox 360 achievement to unlock..."
Laws are made for reasonable people. There will always be idiots, but you can't mold the laws around them without punishing the reasonable people.
"You do not get 'checked' when a business has a sign that says no guns, it simply means if you are a law abiding citizen with a CCW and someone finds out you have a gun in there, you will get charged."
You won't get "charged", you'll get kicked out. You haven't committed any crime, you just violated somebody's policy.
Exceptions are Federally-insured banks, because they are considered (improperly) to be Federal property, and not subject to State laws. Same with Post Offices, but in that case they have a legitimate case for calling it Federal property.
So, when that joke went over your head, was it like WHOOSH!, or was it more like bzzzzzzZZZZZZzzzzz?
Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
Most of your statements sound like those of someone with a pre-formed opinion who is struggling to find "facts" to support it.
Most average concealed carry permit holders are much better marksmen and practice far more often.
Do you have actual evidence of this, or it this just down to your anecdotal (and possibly selective) experience?
Many [LEOs] have never fired a gun in a real situation
What is your argument here? Do you think that CC'ers have been in more "real situations" than LEO's? Does shooting at a range count as a "real situation"?
As someone who does pretty heavy competitive shooting (USPSA and IDPA), I see a LOT of law enforcement (and military) competitors, and most of them turn in some pretty poor scores (except those that have a separate interest in firearms and put in the same practice as the other competitors).
So, most of them are bad except for the ones that aren't. Either this has some great profundity which my non-actualized self is unable to grasp, or, this statement actually means nothing, because it can be said for anything.
I believe it would be similar to me saying "I play a lot of pool in bars, and most women I see are bad at playing pool, except for the ones that are really interested in it and practice a lot." Does this actually mean that men are better than women at pool? I wouldn't think so, though I probably won't get marked +5 insightful either.
People just have to get away from the idea that the badge is magic.
I will charitably disregard the fact that this is a straw man on its face, and just point out, someone with a badge probably has more training than someone without one. In any "real situation" I would rather have an actual LEO present than some mall ninja who thinks he's the answer to crime generally.
police are generally not all that much more qualified to "handle" defense of people than the actual people being threatened are
Even if your above claims that the average CC'er is more highly trained than the average LEO was true, there's still the inconvenient fact that the average citizen is not an average CC'er, and wouldn't put in the time to become more highly trained than their local sheriff's deputy.
Your entire post is little more than proclamation dressed up as fact.
I am not against gun ownership. I grew up in a house with guns, and have been considering getting a CCW permit myself. I really dislike ignorant arguments of any stripe however.
"... because that is just plain wrong"
No, it's not, in most states. South Carolina must be an exception.
In most states, if you carry inside an area that is posted, you haven't committed ANY crime, you have simply violated someone's personal policy.
If they find you out and ask you to leave, you are then trespassing, and that is a crime, of sorts, and they can call the cops. But that has nothing specifically to do with carrying a gun.
There are exceptions. You can't carry in a Post Office or other places that are considered to be Federal territory, because those are exempt from state laws.
I should have written that if you are asked to leave and you refuse, you are trespassing. You are not trespassing if you comply with a request to leave.
"If a law abiding citizen with CCW gets caught in a private venue with a no-guns policy, they'll be asked to leave, at the worst."
That is true of most states, but according to the people here, apparently Texas and South Carolina are exceptions.
The problem with exceptions of that nature is that they let people effectively decide their own law on an ad-hoc basis.
A report that I read said that one of the victims in Aurora had previously survived a mall shooting in Toronto.
=(
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
The concealed carry requirements actually go down to the lowest level of training of "none" for at least one state (AK).
There are clearly other social differences between the US and Switzerland that would have an effect on relative occurrences of mass shootings in the two countries. Prevelance of guns in a population and the populations training in gun use are far from the whole picture on why people develop mental health issues that cause them to go on shooting sprees. I would also argue that the simple fact that there is now a history of shooting sprees in the US makes it more likely for additional incidents to occur.
Columbine (and all other school shootings in recent years), the massacre in Killeen, Texas, and on and on... they ALL took place in areas where it was already illegal to have a gun. So passing more laws against guns would not have made the slightest difference.
Some kids and their parents at Columbine said that if responsible adults had been allowed to have guns, the outcome would probably have been far different.
Spend a few short minutes and watch this YouTube video of testimony before Congress.
Because the progressives believe that they can perfect their fellow man. Which is what makes them so dangerous. See: prohibition.
Whatever, most progressives are against prohibition's modern-day equivalent: pot. Most progressives also are not against gun ownership -- we just think a bit of screening might be in order before getting one.
"As a european who have spent the last 3.5 years in the DC metro area, I have my ideas why the murder rate is so high in the DC area. Racial segregation and poverty, with no chance for social ascension, effectively creating ghettos, play a key role. you can bet on it, the murder rate is not driven up by the murders in Georgetown..."
And so you have just invalidated any argument you may have that guns themselves are the cause, because there are so many other reasons.
This is not Europe. No matter how things work there, we have solid statistics from close to 90 years of experience with "gun control" (firearms restrictions) to varying degrees, in various states, at one time or another.
And the statistics are clear: it doesn't work. Not here, in the U.S. Areas that have the most restrictions continue to have the most homicides from firearms. Areas that reduce restrictions see crime rates (including death by firearm) go DOWN.
These are the government's own statistics (Department of Justice).
Over the last 20+ years (close to 30 now), the crime rate in the U.S. has been dropping steadily. Over the same period, private firearm ownership, per capita, has continued to go UP.
Am I saying that more guns cause less crime? No, I am not claiming that. But the statistics clearly prove that more guns DO NOT cause more crime.
"... states with laxer laws don't have lower rates because of their stance, it is their lower rate that prevents development of cultural pressures to demand governmental action."
Which would be true if, in the United States, some cause-effect had not been strongly indicated. Areas that enact firearms restrictions tend to see crime go up. Areas that relax firearms restrictions tend to see crime rates go down.
Prior to some loosening of the firearms restrictions, 20% of homicides in the U.S. occurred in just 4 cities: New York, Detroit, Chicago, and District of Columbia. Their combined population is about 6% of the U.S. And all 4 cities had stringent firearms restrictions.
When licensing requirements for firearms ownership in D.C. were relaxed in 2008 (due to the court decision that it was unconstitutional), the crime rate dropped significantly. And that is not an isolated case... the same sort of thing has happened all over the U.S.
Ultimately, the problem is cultural. Fixing the cultural problem doesn't require removing the guns.
Though it probably requires removing the Prohibition-type drug laws that seem to spark much of the gun violence (just like the real Prohibition sparked some of the worst gun violence in US history).
Mod up.
Exactly. The vast majority of firearms-related homicide in the U.S. is drug- or gang-related (which are quite often the same thing). It is criminals killing criminals, generally over illegal drug profits (or some other kind of illegal profit, but most of it drugs).
Take away the illegality, you take away the ridiculous profits. Take away the profits, you take away the motive for killing. It sounds simplistic, but our own experience with Prohibition shows it to be true.
To prevent gun issues try welfare. Less people with nothing to lose, less people with no known address (everyone has a PO box at minimum). And there's no downside as welfare is direct economic stimulation, the money is spent instantly (not intelligently, necessarily, but fast, taxis to the liquor store or grocery bills, doesn't matter) on receipt.
Gun ownership is pretty much neutral toward crime, more random shootings, less bar fights/home invasions, but it increases accidental deaths. Training would be good. Teaching people (at least people who want them) guns aren't toys would be better; too bad it's impossible without the corresponding body count. Like for Zimmerman it's fun and power until the trigger pull, and then you're back to real life. And jail.
And any sort of self-defense with a gun gets massively played up by the NRA. You don't hear about it because it is rare. Accidents come up rarely, but frequently relative to the number of self-defense actions. You hear about them because they tend to be tragic (kids) and/or because gun control groups publicize them. And finding honest stats is a mess now, and more effort than I'm willing to make. The propaganda to truth ratio is low at both ends of the spectrum and they drown out the middle.
Gun ownership laws in Canada are applied way differently in the city, where guns stay locked or en route to/from the range, and outside where shotguns (for farmers) and rifles (for hunters) can be carried pretty freely. There generally aren't a lot of incidents in the rural areas, other than occasional drunk hunters shooting farmers, mostly in their own fields right next to the "no hunting" and "no trespassing" signs. This makes total sense to me. So many red state/blue state issues are just rural/urban divides with no comprehension on either side, though the propaganda (from politicians and media owners) doesn't help.
Or we could try the Chris Rock solution and make ammunition expensive. So if someone gets shot they had it coming... Like the dogbert solution: guns for everyone but ammunition only for me.
You got me into this! You were the ideologue! I'm only a poor assassin! - Twenty evocations, Bruce Sterling
Except for when they take them out of the hands of the right people. Will some criminals get their hands on guns even with stricter gun laws? Sure. But many will not, and people with criminal records are not the only people I'd consider the "wrong" people.
It really just goes to show how meaningless most discussions on gun control are that this crap gets moderated insightful. I mean, really? You believe that not a single gun crime can be prevented by gun control? You're so steeped in your own philosophical musk that you've lost touch with reality.
"James Holmes, 24 was a PhD student of neuroscience at the University of Colorado.
He lived in an apartment in the north of Aurora, only five miles from the cinema.
He has no previous criminal record and is in police custody."
Source: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2012/07/20127209345105689.html
Given the education, I doubt he was a 'right-wing nutjob' as some have said. The seemingly innocuous location suggests this wasn't a revenge-based killing, ie. motivated by Holmes' losing a job or getting dumped. One expects the location to bear significance for the intent of the crime, whether that intention is sane or not. So he shot up a movie theatre, a centre of lower- and middle-class economic excess and the substitution of culture and genuine social interaction for mass comfort and 'entertainment'; following these lines, I suspect his 'message' was anti-capitalist (if it was at all explicit). Indeed, it seems like this person took the Joker's message from the last Batman film rather seriously: "introduce a little chaos into people's lives".
And so you have just invalidated any argument you may have that guns themselves are the cause
You would be right if I had ever stated that.
From what I read, the shooter came into the theater from outside through an emergency exit door. I don't know how he got it open, unless perhaps someone had propped it open to sneak their friends into the theater, that happens at my local theater all the time...
Witness reports indicate he paid for a ticket, left via the door (presumably propping it open), suited up and armed himself and came back in. His vehicle was out back there.
Many of those doors are down a dark hallway, and at 12 AM starting time it would be an easy thing to miss that it was open, and an easy disabling of the latch to get it open again.
The real question would be: If you were in the theater with the smoke grenades going off and you were lucky/unlucky enough to find your self standing within 10 feet of the shooter, would having a gun made a difference to you? I dare you to answer no to that question.
Having and carrying a gun has absolutely nothing to do with protecting the public and everything to do with the right of the individual to protect themselves. The public derives benefit as a byproduct of that right because once the invidual is protected the public is protected.
The argument that the public should be protected by the police results in the individual becoming expendable and then all kinds of nasty things happen. Just look at history.
He bought a ticket to the movie and propped the door open himself, then left and reentered from outside.
Probably the only way he could get into the theater with all his gear. He couldn't very well walk in as a patron with full body armor, his weapons, and a gas mask on and bringing everything in a bag would have raised the theater's suspicions he was sneaking in snacks from outside.
Going out to movie theaters were a great social event in the early decades from 30's to 80's, heck people even dressed up fancy to go to the theater. They even would broadcast news before the movies began in the 50's, 60's.
Now more and more people would rather enjoy movies at home in front of their large screens, surround sound in the comfort of home with them self or with family and loved ones in a nice quiet atmosphere.
the only way to get that first run experience at home is through piracy. No one wants to sit in a crowded theater full of strangers all lip smacking on candy/popcorn and slurping sodas.
The price of a movie ticket plus small drink, small popcorn is the same price as owning the DVD anyhow.
So now this just proves it's much safer to stay home
go to
http://icefilms.info/ - for direct download television and movies.
or for torrent fans
http://kat.ph/
http://thepiratebay.se/
or
http://demonoid.me/
For those that enjoy watching downloaded media on their television can purchase a western digital WD TV plus, made for pirates by pirates was on of their early slogans since it works like VLC media player supporting all codecs. Can stream your movies off your lan from a shared drive. Or plug in a usb flash drive or external usb hard drive for local storage and can stream movies that way and can even stream youtube for 100 bucks.
http://www.amazon.com/Western-Digital-1080p-Media-Player/dp/B003MVZ60I
Fuck theaters, noone wants to go to theaters with strangers, noise, talking, smells, etc.
piracy is safer and much more enjoyable
is 8 dead 13 wounded. Close enough?
"A year from now, ten, they'll swing back to the belief that they can make peoplebetter. And I do not hold to that. "
Progressives have just made Reavers. Not like in the story, but just as scary.
Do you think its a common occurrence for Americans to watch each other get killed or shot at? Unless I am somewhere that people are hunting or in a sporting goods store, it is extremely rare to actually see a gun.
What about rules preventing him from buying those guns in the first place.
MABASPLOOM!
"There's no chance that the amendment would have been passed if it was possible to foretell what it would lead to."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Yeah, right.
Please note that (as the Supreme Court recently affirmed), the right to bear arms is an individual right, and (as historical documents clearly show) was guaranteed not only because of the fundamental truth that one has a right to defend oneself against aggression, but also from acknowledgment that was possible that aggression could come from our own government.
I frankly don't care if you're terrified of guns. That has no bearing on my right to have one.
The more I read about it, the more I think that taking a shot wouldn't necessarily have been a hard thing.
Supposedly, Butthead there was wandering up and down the rows of seats shooting people at random. Which means Butthead didn't have the protection of his smokescreen for more than the first few seconds.
Admittedly, you probably couldn't have gotten a safe shot (pretty much defined as "no innocent bystanders behind the bad guy, and noone especially near you either") till most of the murders were done.
Interestingly, I just read the very first editorial in the Washington Post calling for more gun control.
Note that when I referred to Democrats, I wasn't just talking politicians. The media is largely Dem, and will be all over this like white on rice....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
"... we just think a bit of screening might be in order before getting one."
Really? But then you run up against the same fundamental problem as always: who decides?
Would YOU decide who can have a gun and who can't? If you did, what basis would you use? What if someone is a bit mentally slow... but is being stalked by a dangerous person or an ex-spouse?
And there is the further problem that if you let government decide who gets guns, doesn't that infringe upon our individual constitutional right to have them?
Laws are made for the common, reasonable case. There will always be crazies. You can't design the law around crazies without unduly punishing normal, reasonable people.
I'm not sure if you saw, but apparently someone who barely avoided your shooting was shot and killed in the Colorado shooting last night.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
"You would be right if I had ever stated that."
True, you did not say that in so many words. But I felt you strongly implied it here:
"Firearms being illegal in DC does not mean a thing since you can have all you need in Virginia, a mile away."
Crazy people usually are not able to circumvent rules or common sense as well as a normal person. Some do but most do not. Nothing is perfect but you can deal with the majority cases. The process of buying guns should be aggravating and involve a bunch of triggers so nutters are filtered out; somebody who is found nuts must lose their guns until they are healed (if possible.)
Yes, there is a problem where anybody outside a certain political group is labeled nutcases. But then you have actually sane people labeled nuts who will figure out ways to get weapons and when you are dealing with invasion or mass revolt the law does not matter anymore. Some think arms are just toys and REAL arms too dangerous so banning the toys makes sense while others think we should have access to serious weapons. The point often lost is the whole purpose to the right is not for hunting or other hobbies or for some silly libertarian anarchy where everybody shoots whomever scares them (black kids in hoodies for example.)
Gawd, where was that? Every State I've lived in that had CCW required some range time as part of the training...
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
How many violent deaths are depicted in the Batman movie for entertainment purposes?
There is something oddly ironic and contradictory about the response of shocked horror to this massacre. A massacre in the midst of a hyper violent movie where violent and gruesome death is an unremarkable prop that nobody gives a second thought.
I've shot guns on many occasions including assault rifles, I just don't see the need for them in civilian hands.
"... we just think a bit of screening might be in order before getting one."
Really? But then you run up against the same fundamental problem as always: who decides? Would YOU decide who can have a gun and who can't? If you did, what basis would you use? What if someone is a bit mentally slow... but is being stalked by a dangerous person or an ex-spouse? And there is the further problem that if you let government decide who gets guns, doesn't that infringe upon our individual constitutional right to have them? Laws are made for the common, reasonable case. There will always be crazies. You can't design the law around crazies without unduly punishing normal, reasonable people.
I'm getting really tired of this "no solution is perfect, so let's go with no solution" attitude. You can tweak the damn rules, improve the situation, and it won't destroy the fucking country. And let's also be clear -- the 2nd Amendment gives well-regimented militias (e.g. the National Guard) the right to bear arms. You don't have a constitutional right to carry a gun for personal protection, that's what we call a 'privilege'.
My 15 year old niece is visiting Denver and happened to go to a midnight showing of Batman in Denver. She wasn't in that theater because it's in the suburbs but it's a little close to home for me.
You felt it wrong.
that the gun nut considers his manhood enhancement to be more important than his wishes. Then they are trespassing. It doesn't matter how self-important their little friend makes them feel. Owners property, owners rules.
A simple solution for this: Compulsory military service of 1-year, training in weapons and tactics, upon reaching age 18.
Why not have the government subsidize the training of America's youth in proper exercise of their 2nd amendment rights while making a larger pool of able young adults in time of need?
there are more murders in Washington DC than in Colorado in a typical year.
this is the stupidest argument for anything. DC and Colorado are radically different places sociologically, demographically, in pretty much every way that you can think of.
it's like saying, "hey, there's no gun ban on the moon, look how many murders they have there!"
Can't blame the movie's, it was only 39 minutes into a premiere.
I don't know what state you're talking about, but in Kentucky the sign doesn't carry any weight. All the store owner can do is ask you to leave. If you don't leave, they can call the cops.
It's the same in all states where carry is permitted otherwise.
The USA and Canada are different; I wouldn't suggest that you adopt our system per se, because your circumstances aren't the same. But it seems obvious to me that sufficiently strict gun laws CAN work if they have an appropriate societal context to exist.
The question is, do you have low crime because of your gun laws? Or is it because of the other numerous policy differences between US and Canada (like, say, much better social welfare net, leading to fewer desperate people)?
It depends on what you're shooting him with and the distance. E.g. for my daily carry piece, which is a .32, it is certainly quite literally bullet proof. And there are vests out there that will hold a 9mm or a .45, too, and you can buy them on e.g. Amazon.
That said, it would be really interesting if someone did actually try to shoot him and failed to do damage, or if nobody even tried. The people who were near the exits all rushed out - which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do with the circumstances, and I'd do the same thing. But a lot have, apparently, just crouched under the sits and waited there while he walked around picking and shooting them at random.
And despite the strict gun laws being in place, shootings are still happening with the restricted weapons. And while only two were killed in the Danzig shooting, dozens were shot. I don't know how one can attribute the lower death rate in one mass-shooting vs. another to the presence of gun control laws.
Toronto's gun violence problem grows despite the city's ever increasing crackdown on firearms. As the police here have been pointing out, the difference between violent crime in the US vs.Canada is one of culture. The increase in this very public violence in Canadian streets is due to the cultural shift in Canada, and how the Canadian street gangs are starting to view the use of public violence in the same way as American street gangs have been for decades.
They're cliches, but they're still true: correlation doesn't equal causation, and guns don't kill people, people kill people. Gun control doesn't stop violence, it is simply more popular in communities which are less disposed to violence. Gun violence is ultimately a social and cultural problem, and should be treated as such.
I'm not sure why this article was posted on slashdot without mentioning that the shooter was in grad school for neuroscience. It seems as least somewhat relevant to this audience to reveal, without ascribing any causation.
How does a guy who was smart enough and focused enough to be going for his graduate degree in neuroscience end up dressing up as the Joker and going off the deep end? I suppose it will come out that he was suffering from emotional issues combined with some psychological problems, but you would think he would be more aware of these issues than the average person due to his study of interest.
Umm... Would the name calling gentleman be so kind as to explain, why incidents like this are very rare in countries which do not provide ready access to guns to the general public?
Mainly because those countries are different from the United States in many other ways; most importantly, they tend to be more "socialist" in that they provide a wider and broader reaching social welfare net, free healthcare etc. It's well known that poverty breeds crime, so a society that combats it better will have less crime.
If you want an example of a country that has gun laws similar to US (including the ability to own and carry a pistol concealed) but doesn't have similar troubles with violent crime, look at Czech Republic.
If we want to change the 2nd amendment, article five is right there, provided specifically so we can do exactly that.
Article III, which establishes the supreme court, in no way assigns article V powers to the justices or to congress. No restriction, license or ban they have implemented or rubber-stamped is relevant or authorized with regard to the 2nd; the thing explicitly says the government can't infringe on the rights to keep and carry, and that covers the entire scope of it any law dealing with any arms whatsoever. Likewise, congress can make no legitimate law that restricts these rights. Any such law they create is government malfeasance, a direct violation of the oath they swore when they became members of congress, and an exercise of unauthorized power. If we want to change this, then we must turn to article five. There is no other legitimate path.
Furthermore, I would even argue that we SHOULD change it -- I don't want my neighbor cooking up Anthrax or cobbling up a nuke somehow -- but it CAN'T be changed legitimately by congress enacting legislation or SCOTUS' sophist hand-waving. They simply do not have that authority. Power? Sure, they have the power, and they're 100% ready to misuse it, but that is no different in any sense from any banana republic where some buffoon declares "because I said so."
Let me leave you with this quote:
"Who are the militia?" asked Tench Coxe, friend of Madison and prominent ... Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their ... The unlimited power of the sword is not
Federalist, in the Pennsylvania Gazette of Feb. 20, 1788. "Are they not
ourselves.
swords, and every other terrible instrument of the soldier, are the
birth-right of an American.
in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I
trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
1) Yes, the militia were, and are, "ourselves" -- that's what it meant when they wrote it. Not national guard, etc.
2) You would probably be amazed at the variety of arms the authors were aware of when they wrote the second. Yet they didn't say guns: They said arms. They were also well aware that arms were under development at all times, and they *still* just said "arms." You have every right to own any arms you can afford, build, receive as a gift, or trade for. You don't legally require a license for any of it, and you don't need to tell anyone what you have. Just be aware that the government does whatever it wants, as it is, and has long been, out of control due to our consistently electing idiots to power.
shut down Colorado.
Here's the thing. This is not a democracy. This is a constitutional republic. That's mostly because democracy is inherently dangerous to minorities, a problem which the founders were well aware of -- they didn't just skip the idea of a pure democracy because they missed it, you know. The statement "Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner" illustrates the basic problem. It's actually worse than that, but even just that is enough to say "a pure democracy is a very bad idea."
The US process is not "we do what popular opinion (democratic majority) says", it is "we establish a government which is constituted with specific limits" and then we vote on representatives who swear to act within the bounds of those limits.
One of those limits is that if we -- actually, the government acting in our stead -- want to change the constituting rules, then the procedure described in article five must be followed. We don't just get to vote changes in, nor is the legislature authorized to simply write law that makes such changes. That is allowing the fox to define the combination for the chicken yard, and that's why they're not authorized to do it. Instead, there is a tedious and annoying process, even somewhat democratic in nature which I suspect would please you, that must be followed.
And the bottom line with the second amendment is that it authorizes the keeping and carrying of arms, no restrictions, and furthermore it explicitly denes the government the power to apply restrictions.
If we want to change that, and actually, I agree it needs updating, as nukes and bioweapons and chemweapons strike me as needing rather more stewardship than Larry the plumber down the street is likely to be able to provide, we have that opportunity. See article five.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
what Jerry said I am amazed that any body can profit $7827 in 4 weeks on the computer. did you read this web page http://goo.gl/UUZFR
Which, if true, is really funny because WA doesn't have a reciprocal relationship with Texas which requires a full day course plus a practical examination. (IIRC WA objects to TX CHL licenses because 18 year olds with military service can carry which is still illegal in WA. Someone should check me on that though.)
There are shooting yes, but they faaaar damn rarer than int he US.
Canada has begun to shift the focus from prevention to punishment, in keeping with the ideology of those in power. As this shift continues, and 'our gun laws get stricter in an attempt to quash gun violence' (actually in an attempt to appease frightened elderly shut ins who form most of the Conservatvie party's base), we will see more and more gun crime as root causes go ignored and the percentage of our population that has been in prison increases.
I will assume you are referring to the Pontifical Swiss Guard of Vatican City. During regular guard duty they wear a solid blue uniform, not unlike uniforms worn by most police forces around the world. The three colored uniform you are probably referring to, is only for ceremonial duties and its not much more ridiculous in appearance than those of many other ceremonial uniforms in use around the world. At least they are not wearing man-skirts like the Greeks or the Scots.
I think that's the only thing blocking reciprocity. You do have to be 21 to get a Washington State CPL. http://www.atg.wa.gov/ConcealedWeapons/Reciprocity.aspx gives a state-by-state breakdown for Washington.
Those kind of common incidents for Europe and the Middle East that almost never happen in the US?
Many of my local stores have security guards to monitor the entrances, and insides of the building. Why should a movie theater be any different? It should be illegal to operate a public meeting place without a security guard or two.
Your'e absolutely right. The entire audience should have been armed so that instead of one nutjob shooting there would also be tens or hundreds of people shooting wildly in all directions as they hear gunshots and see someone near them with a gun.
And all the bloodshed would have been avoided.
Or maybe everyone in the audience who feels responsible enough to obtain a concealed carry permit and purchase and carry a firearm might, oh, I don't know, NOT shoot wildly in all directions but actually wait until they could SEE the guy who's walking around actively SHOOTING people, and THEN they might aim carefully and shoot directly at the shooter, thus having AT LEAST a 50/50 chance of actually STOPPING the shooter. Which is a hell of a lot better than just sitting there and waiting until he kills everyone in the room.
Honestly, EVERY SINGLE FUCKING COMMENT from people like you (people opposed to concealed carry) goes to the absolute extreme of assuming--no, DECLARING WITH CERTAINTY that even a SINGLE other armed person is going to turn a... bloodbath... into a... multiple bloodbath?
I really don't f**king understand you people. It's already a fucking bloodbath! People who go to the trouble of carrying legal firearms for self defense DO NOT have the tendency of just randomly and blindly shooting in all directions! I don't know where you get this idea!
No. They don't. Seriously. Only crazy people shoot wildly in all directions at things they can't see. Because that would be f**king insane.
Show me ONE account in the real world of someone wielding a firearm in self defense (outside of a Hollywood movie) where they actually just started randomly firing in the dark in a crowded room. One!
Gaaah! I don't know why I bother.
Kicked an outward opening door in? WTF?
Why exactly would they do that? Are you an idiot?
BLACK BLOC OCCUPY WALL STREET
His videos are on youtube, posted by him, with him in them.
The liberal shitbags apparently didn't get enough with Gabby Giffords.
I hope this doesn't stay in the news for months. While unfortunate, it isn't all that newsworthy. Why are we, as a society, captivated by crazy individuals?
Above all: I realize we are all participating in a thought exercise in the comments today. My thoughts are with the people harmed in this incident and their families.
Now...
Can we please begin blaming the perpetrator and NOT the tool they used to commit their crimes?
Can we craft laws that give family members the ability to report troubling behavior to authorities, possibly forcing a doctors' consultation? How is it that in the U.S., you can be jailed and forced to take treatment for Tuberculosis, but persons who walk around month after month, year after year exhibiting a dozen classical red flags for behavioral illness are left to their own devices? - Maybe they'll never harm anyone. Maybe they'll shoot up a movie theater.
Please stop blaming guns. Where are all the guns in Western Europe, where Britain has a violent crime rate higher than the United States, or for that matter even South Africa?
SOURCE: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
SOURCE: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/696036-britain-more-violent-than-us-and-europe
10 killed - 63 seriously injured - CLEARLY we need a background check and 30 day waiting period to buy AUTOMOBILES. What happens when a tragedy like this is intentional and not an accident? What could a sick person do with a Chevy Suburban in a crowded parking lot?
SOURCE: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,222924,00.html
SOURCE: http://articles.cnn.com/2004-01-05/justice/farmer.market.crash_1_movsha-hoffman-molok-ghoulian-brendon-esfahani?_s=PM:LAW
I'd rather gamble my life rushing a gunman to grapple their weapon away. The Tueller Drill / 21 Foot Rule says I'd probably win:
SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill
SOURCE: http://www.policeone.com/edged-weapons/articles/102828-Edged-Weapon-Defense-Is-or-was-the-21-foot-rule-valid-Part-1/
According to a number of sources, gunshot wounds - with access to medical treatment - are survivable nearly 95% of the time. Fate is cruel; survivability has everything to do with where you are shot and what is damaged internally.
SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/nyregion/03shot.html?_r=1
This just in!
Another human being can pick a fight with you, or sucker punch you in the head, AND KILL YOU BARE HANDED.
SOURCE: http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Man__bleeding_in_brain__after_club_fracas-139265238.html
SOURCE: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2012/02/27/20120227california-girl-dies-after-fight.html
SOURCE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9PoXH_-tUE
SOURCE: http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2011/04/teen-killed-in-fistfight-near.html/
SOURCE: http://abcnews.go.com/US/TheLaw/fist-fight-left-miami-tourist-dead-caught-video/story?id=11445914#.UAnc_oa-zUY
SOURCE:
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
Wanna know how I got these scars?
impose strict laws like the rest of the first-world-west (even CH, which is strict, in the must-have-a-gun-direction) but this do-whatever-you-want-with-gunownership has got to slop
There are laws against brandishing. There are laws against murder. There are laws against bodily injury. There are laws about where you can carry. There are laws about who can carry. This isn't a "do-whatever-you-want-with-gun-ownership" state. What this person did already has 62 levels of illegal all over it. This guy will probably get sentenced to something just short of "forever". WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT US TO DO?
In an illuminated non-smoke-filled space where everyone was sure where the armed intruders were, it didn't mean a single casualty; both of the robbers received non-life-threatening gunshot wounds.
So what you're saying is, in a dark smoke filled space his aim would have been better and he'd have managed to kill an innocent bystander.
You could also include it into the high school curriculum like driver's ed.
Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
12 with 50 injured would be a national catastrophe and on the front page of every major newspaper.
I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that this is news all across the country. Major news.
Regarding the gun laws, I find it fascinating that we in the US are so eager to hold on with a death grip to our guns while other countries have been steadily eliminating guns from the general population with, what seems to be, minimal complaint. It makes me wonder whether there would be that much complaining once it was done.
I'd happily pay you Tuesday for a biopsy today!
You must be a government shill. If those people were armed the shooter would have been taken out after the first shot. Shit like this doesn't happen in Texas. And your government blaming false flags on Iran doesn't help the world situation either. How about you shut the fuck up (tm)?
New Rule: You can't say both "we as americans have a constitutional right to own firearms" and "this is a tragedy". You just can't. If you believe in gun rights, then you can't complain when this happens.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
What is it about Colorado that seems to breed and change people into loving guns and public shootings? First Columbine, then a church shooting earlier this year and now this?
A friend of mine recently moved to Colorado. Before moving there he was the nicest person. He recently posted on his facebook page pictures of him and some locals at an event with guns at an "open range"....
Damn right! Do that in Texas and he'd have had some serious return fire to deal with. I'm from Wisconsin btw :-P They just passed the concealed weapons permit and idiots now think everyone's going to go on shooting sprees or some dumb BS like that. This is a shining example of why just about everyone needs a gun on them at almost all times. I add those exceptions because at the average Packer game, there's about 20 fights leading to arrests. The would all be gunfights :-P Guns + alcohol and/or stupid people = bad idea. Other than that, well let's just say even before the law passed I was carrying significant less than lethal and semi-lethal weaponry pretty much everywhere for this exact reason.
Yeah I agree with you. Somebody would have shot the guy, if a number of the patrons were packing. We don't need everyone packing, but maybe a well-trained five percent would be enough.
Otherwise, when you spend long periods of time in public, there is no reason to have one on you.
Tell that to the 71-year-old man in Florida who stopped an armed robbery because he was carrying. Or the 57-year-old grandmother who fought back against two armed carjackers. Yep, no reason at all. Because it won't do any good.
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
Maybe slashdot is not so rotten as I expected. I was sure that here I would read lots of posts about "Darwin deaths" or insensible clods mocking of the dead people, like happened in the past. Or Maybe because this time the dead people are American? ;)
The problem with this mindset is that rape is not about sex. It's about power . Take his penis away, and next time the rapist will use a baseball bat, or a gun, or kidnap and torture the victim. Castration will only make the problem worse.
An AR-15 is an excellent choice for a place with regular dry wall.
No, really.
So the 5.56x45mm round's power comes from velocity, not mass. They are very light, 40-77 grains normally (9x19mm is 115-147grain for reference) and travel very, very fast. They are extremely lethal at short ranges (meaning under about 100 meters) because the large amount of kinetic energy will cause them to fragment when they hit their target. This is also why they can lose their effectiveness at longer ranges, they don't reliably fragment and if they fail to tumble in the target, will do a through-and-through and do not a lot more damage than a .22LR, one complaint some of the armed forces has with the round.
Well, it turns out that this fragmentation and light mass translates to shitty barrier penetration (another complaint). When it hits a barrier, even dry wall, it fragments and loses a substantial amount of energy. After penetrating two layers of dry wall the round will be in pieces and have little energy. It still could potentially kill or wound someone depending on, but it is less likely to than pretty much any other round.
So it is a little counter-intuitive, but a 5.56 BTHP round is one of the best choices for less penetration through dry wall. The choice many people would think, a 12ga shotgun, is actually one of the worst. 00 buckshot penetrates many layers of drywall and still retains lethal force, as well as spreading out so as to be less predictable where it goes. Despite being "pre-fragmented" the mass of the individual pellets is sufficient that they go pretty well, and the initial could walls get hit by them in a big mass since they are so close (in a home setting) and thus punch through with ease.
There's no perfectly safe round, if it was perfectly safe it wouldn't do the job of stopping someone, but 5.56 is actually one of the better choices when you want less barrier penetration.
Not saying your Rambo friend made the choice for a good reason or is responsible, just saying that it actually isn't a bad choice for the intended role.
You have to disarm upon reasonable request for the owner of an establishment, and a sign counts as such a request (it is explicitly specified in the law). So you are in violation of the law to carry in a place with a "no guns" sign, or if the owner or an employee tells you no guns.
Sure, it depends on the caliber and the distance. No question about it. But even with your .32, he's gonna have bruised ribs from every bullet he takes or perhaps even broken ribs. It's not like he can just shrug it off like nothing happened. Besides, someone doing something as cowardly as what he did deserves to be shot in the nads, anyways.
Petrol bomb the NRA. Burn the fuckers to the ground.
How about that new batman movie: I hear people are just killing/dieing to see it.
120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
You can't legislate common sense
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
to be honest he failed and didn't do enough.
wtf dude has gas and weapons out the kazo in a dark setting with the element of surprise o and can only take out 12
FAIL
Laws are made for reasonable people. There will always be idiots, but you can't mold the laws around them without punishing the reasonable people.
Restricting gun ownership is hardly 'punishment' for reasonable people. I've lived in a few countries that all had "gun control". All of them had lower crime rates than the US and all them were possible to own a gun if you were a reasonable person. I don't understand the US fascination with owning a gun, the rest of the civilised world gets by fine with sensible firearm restrictions, why can't the US?
Well, it's worth pointing out that Canada has a much lower gun violence rate than either of those places, and there ARE strict gun laws in place.
It's worth pointing out that every western country in the world has much lower gun violence than the US too, and they all also have stricter gun laws.
These shootings abroad --in both countries that do and don't have easy access to guns-- are becoming more common.
Really? I'm struggling to think of any other cases ever in Norway, so if by more common you mean going from zero to one, then technically you are correct. However I'd hazard a guess that these types of shootings happen more often in the US (where all the guns are) than all other western countries combined. Down in here in Australia, I can only think of one case of mass shooting ever and that was about 20 years ago. So for us they are becoming less common (going from one to zero).
Because the progressives believe that they can perfect their fellow man. Which is what makes them so dangerous. See: prohibition.
The Prohibition Movement was started and perpetuated by church groups. Laws like the one in NYC banning large sodas are ridiculous, but so are laws banning pot and gay marriage. Every interest group with an axe to grind pushes stupid laws to regulate behaviors they don't like--singling out progressives is willful ignorance.
Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
I live in a european country were you need a licence from the police to own any kind of gun. Personally i know only a couple of people who own guns and almost noone who has ever fired them. As such, my first thought was "this is what happens when everyone can buy a submachine gun". After reading some of the comments above, i understand what some proponents of gun ownership try to express: Indeed the weapons are just a tool.
But it's a very effective tool. And there lies the problem. A deranged mind without access to guns, would probably find some way to kill people, but the number of deaths/injuries would probably be far fewer. When your killer is hunting you with a hunting knife your chances of survival are mach greater than when he has a AK-47. When he's driving a truck towards you, you can hear it from a distance, maybe dodge out of the way at the last moment. But you can't dodge your way out from a bullet.
> When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
And when I carry a gun, I don't even have to reason with you. I can shoot you. I can do this anywhere, anytime, from 2,000 yards away or do it a behind you in a queue at the shops before you even knew what happened and there is not a damned thing you can do about it. Where is your force equalizer now?
"I'm getting really tired of this "no solution is perfect, so let's go with no solution" attitude"
Get as tired as you like. Because you haven't even framed the problem properly.
In fact, what YOU are saying, is that "Nobody has found a solution I like, so that's no solution."
Ehhhhhhh..... (sound of buzzer on stage) "Sorry, that's not quite it."
"And let's also be clear -- the 2nd Amendment gives well-regimented militias... "
Dude. You don't read the news. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, about a year and a half ago, maybe two years, that what you are saying is BULLSHIT.
They ruled that there is no question, but the right to bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL right. They said it in so many words, in their decision that struck down the firearms licensing restrictions in D.C.
Get a clue, man. History says, and the Supreme Court RECENTLY said, right in your face, that you are wrong.
Okay, I felt it wrong, but the basic rules of English still say that you strongly implied it. Don't blame me: I didn't make those rules.
I am SO tired of this argument.
... but even if those statistics WERE NOT questionable, it doesn't matter, because we have very solid and reliable statistics RIGHT HERE, for... where else? RIGHT HERE.
Dude, the U.S. has been experimenting with one or another form of gun control, in more or less extreme fashion, in various states and municipalities, for around 80 years.
And the statistics (as compiled by THE U.S. GOVERNMENT) over that time, are very clear: it doesn't work.
It might work in Australia (thought it actually didn't) and it might work in England (though it actually didn't)...
It's late, and I am quite literally tired of pointing people at actual factual information. Go to the Department of Justice website. If you know what statistics you are actually looking for, they should not be hard to find. If you can't find them, don't blame me. But I already know what they say.
Probably the gunman would have given warning, just like us navy warned Indian fishermen before killing them. If so, the gunman is innocent.
The Swiss Guard is a relict of the past guarding the pope at the vatican and isn't really related to the modern swiss army.
Nice, two examples in a country with a population of almost 300 million.
Btw, what's the police is for then?
If you read the post I replied to, you should realize that what I suggest is the following:
There is point in arguing about the effect of gun control laws in geographically small area surrounded by areas where one can get arms with ease.
Federally-insured banks
I've never heard that one, and I open carry into a couple banks at least once a month. I'm sure as much as some feds would like to make banks federal property, it's just not the case.
At any rate, I'm not sure how post offices and Washington DC (being a federal enclave) get away with their bans. If we hold that the bill of rights, along with the 2nd amendment, is a check first and only against federal power--which is something many constitutional scholars claim, as well as the supreme court upheld in Barron vs Baltimore, then bearing arms on federal territory is in fact expressly preemptively and expressly allowed.
Since the 2nd amendment has only recently been (partway) incorporated against the states in McDonald vs. Chicago, it really makes no sense that the only places in the country one can't keep and bear arms is on federal territory. It makes double nonsense that if you violate any other federal-level law at a private citizen, you'll surely be held accountable, even though you were not on "federal territory". It only makes sense to say that each and every square inch of land which constitutes this republic is part of the federation of states, and that all federal laws apply everywhere equally, and take precedence over any state and local laws. I'm just not sure what's so hard about it sometimes.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
From what I read, the shooter came into the theater from outside through an emergency exit door. I don't know how he got it open, unless perhaps someone had propped it open to sneak their friends into the theater, that happens at my local theater all the time...
The Washington Post said that he bought tickets, entered the theater, exited out of the emergency door; then 20 minutes into the film returned through that door which he had braced to reopen (propped open? tape? they didn't say how). Every single thing that I read says that there is no indication that he had accomplices.
Nice, two examples in a country with a population of almost 300 million.
Btw, what's the police is for then?
They were just the first two that came to mind. I could sit here all day and list them out.
As for the police, they try to deter crime, but generally they're just doing the investigation afterward and trying to catch the guy after the act. If you think that you will (a) be able to call them when someone decides to attack you and/or the place you are in, and (b) that they will be able to be there in seconds, you're fooling yourself. If the police aren't actually right there, then everything will likely be over by the time they arrive. Heck, it's going to take at least a minute or two just for the 911 call to be taken and for the call to go out.
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
From what I read, the shooter came into the theater from outside through an emergency exit door. I don't know how he got it open, unless perhaps someone had propped it open to sneak their friends into the theater, that happens at my local theater all the time...
It's already been reported that the shooter had a movie ticket, left through the emergency exit which he propped open while he returned to his car and returned, this time with guns and armor. Screening in the lobby would have had zero effect on the outcome.
Aurora is where I grew up. In 1999 I moved to Highlands Ranch but lived close enough to see Columbine from our backyard; I watched it unfold from a hotel room in London. But it's the memories of another senseless shooting massacre in 1993 that still haunt many in my hometown. One of the victims killed in the Chuck. E. Cheese that night was the younger sister of a childhood friend, and I'm sure this has been difficult for them.
Most of the lessons that really matter here will get hopelessly lost as special interests co-opt this tragedy without any regard to what truly happened, why it happened, and most importantly, what this community (and nation) will need to recover. If you want to help out, please don't drag our tragedy into your cause; be constructive at a personal level: offer your friendship to those around you with opinions and beliefs that may differ from your own
Well, this anonymous coward thinks that maybe something good can come of this tragedy. All the talk of gun control by this disease that is Obama should now end. Had people been armed in that theatre on that night, there would have been two deaths. The first victim and then the shooter. Take a page from Canada's failed experiment with gun control. It does not work. Only the criminals are armed when you control guns. But Liberals have a hard time understanding that criminals don't follow rules. Believe me, America, do not give up your guns!
As a grad student Holmes had a high risk for a little known mental break. Discovered when it caused mental breaks for office workers in 1964. Engineers designed the office cubicle to block peripheral vision to stop it by 1968. --- When it happened to my wife she heard voices and had depressive crying episodes about impossible delusional situations she hallucinated.--- In nine years of writing emails and letters I found only one doctor, Dr. Daniel Carlat, Tuffs, who said he had seen the episodes from office exposure while in residency.
Schools do not provide Cubicle Level Protection where needed nor do they warn students about study areas and computer workstations at home.
Chronic exposure would have shaped his thinking with delusions or persecution and paranoia. He acted out those delusions by planning and executing the shooting. It doesn't have to make sense it's psychotic.
The problem is explained in first semester psychology. If the mental break is mentioned it is treated as something that happened once, long ago. My instructor said, "Subliminal sight caused a problem in the early days of modern office design." ... It is so simple that the "special circumstances" to allow exposure for the mental break can be created almost anywhere full mental investment is used and there is repeating detectable movement nearby in peripheral vision. That movement is usually pets or family members, roommates. But because far peripheral vision has only movement and position information, the movement cannot be identified unless you complete the reflex, turn and look at it. The movement does not have to be human or alive. Any detectable movement will do. Blinking lights can substitute if they are swept through peripheral vision with a head turn while using your computer. VisionAndPsychosis_Net
Subliminal Distraction happens when you learn to successfully ignore distracting movement near you. The startle stops but your brain still subliminally detects threat-movement and still attempts to force the startle That action is a subliminal distraction, explained in first semester college psychology.
The Air Force has agreed to investigate my project and Subliminal Distraction as the cause of service member suicides. I have a letter from the Pentagon.
"Maybe it's a reflection on society and not access to inanimate objects?"
Exactly. Sure seems like these tragedies are happening w greater frequency and across a wider range of circumstances. I'd like to see the numbers on this.
Is there a lower joy factor overall? A lower hope factor? Violence is inherent to people and always has been. But within the context of a culture, where are the tipping points.
I'm in my forties. I have two kids. I think I pay attention and it seems obvious to me that there's a shift occurring in people's hope factor. Yeah there's always gotta be an a-hole in the bunch and there always will be.
But at some point does the collective consciousness/culture/social-direction begin to breed more aholes?
And by ahole I mean deeply disconnected, sociopathic, motherfucking, cock-sucking, cowardly prick.
The FBI says that the number of "mass murders (being defined as 4 or more people being killed at one venue) has not increased statistically at all since the 70's. The murder rate in America in 2010 was at a 40 year low. The murder rate in 1991 was 51% higher than in 2010. There were about 14,000 murders in 1969 and about the same number in 2010 (even though we had a hundred million more people in 2010).
So why does it seem that this is some trend? Because we have 24 hour news and the Internet now. When something happens today it is news around the world within an hour. Back in the day if something happened, you didn't hear about it unless it happened in your city (or state).
I am a Denver resident. I've seen my last three movies at that very theater. This act has chilled us all to the bone. It's like Columbine, but without any parents to blame. The suspect was a post-grad working on his doctorate; in fact, he was in the process of dropping out.
TP quotes one news article, but that news correspondent made an incorrect assumption. Those doors are steel construction with 1/4" thick bang-plates; you can't simply kick them in.
The gunman did not "sneak in"... he sneaked out after buying a ticket! His white car was parked strategically by those exit doors at the back of the building. He propped those doors open on his way out and geared-up for a few minutes before going back in through the same door. He basically used the same loophole that employees use to get high during a shift. (Plz... that's not a generalization; I'm sure most cinema-trons are hard working and honest.)
So, for anyone that's going to say that theater rules or municipal code would have prevented it, you're full of it. This may have been prevented with better building security at the exits, more attentive staff (or just more staff for an important midnight event) or even a person that notices this douchebag propping open a one-way exit and just closes the door behind him. At least then, the gunman would have had to walk around the building or drive his car fully-armed and quite obvious. The police response that night was so quick because they were already at the mall to help direct the increased traffic. If his route back into the theater was blocked, he wouldn't have had the opportunity to stun with gas or have his "fish in a barrel" target range. Sure, it wouldn't have stopped him from making trouble, but it very well could have prevented a massacre of this scale.
One thing has been made very clear; there is no legislation or body of intelligence that prevented James Holmes from owning, loading and carrying a devastating firearm into a crowded theater. Up until he started shooting people, James Holmes did everything by the book. That's the scariest part of all. How many states ban assault weapons? Care to guess? Just five. How many limit or regulate the sale of assault weapons? Three. What does that leave us, Mr. Wizard? That leaves us with forty-two states that don't do anything about the sale of assault weapons.
You guessed it. Colorado is one of those forty-two states.
A massacre has never happened simply because we were missing a specific law. An armed victim is still a victim. A massacre cannot be prevented by passive technological security measures or even active security screening, for those are simply patterns and obstacles to a persistent attacker.
A massacre happens because the attacker knows that people just don't give a damn.
This post © Copyrite Duggeek, all rights reversed.
In 2011 German police fired 85 bullets in total. US police can do this at one traffic stop.
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
He didn't kick the exit door in. He went into the cinema normally. He exited the emergency exit and propped it open. Got ready then went back in. What gets me is the exit doors are opened, normally alarms go off. (at least in cinemas in Australia). Gun ownership is fine in my book. What is not fine is the ability to purchase assault rifle with 100 round drum magazine and body armor. Asking for trouble.
Thomas Hamilton got all his legally as well - notwithstanding the fact that he was a dirty fucking nonce with connections in the police (details are D-Noticed for the next 85 years). He ended up by walking into a school and shooting sixteen kids and a teacher dead, injuring 15 before taking his own face off.
Kneejerk reaction: All automatic rifles banned. Brocock cartridge air weapons banned. Most cartridge load handguns banned (.22 rimfire pistols banned in 1997). FAC limit taken down to 12fpe for air rifle, 6fpe for air pistol. Historic muzzle load and cartridge weapons limited to 5-shot magazines, shotguns to 3 cartridges.
Hamilton used 2 9mm Browning HP pistols and 2 Smith & Wesson M19 .357 Magnum revolvers.
I smell a large rat here. What this looks like to me is a government using a situation that may or may not have been one of their own design and execution, to disarm the population.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
I'd like to know WTF a 6 year old is doing at a movie like this?
Laws are made for the common, reasonable case. There will always be crazies. You can't design the law around crazies without unduly punishing normal, reasonable people.
exactly like the American laws enabling security theatre at airports. Laws , completely made for the common , reasonable case. Only common man would carry aerosol on a flight , no crazy would ever dream of that. Got it.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Jeeze, all these smart people posting all these smart answers, many of which included the expression "kicked in the door(s)"
HOWEVER, theater doors open OUTWARD. Maybe a sumo wrestler could kick a movie-theater door inward, with great effort, and multiple tries. If it was any kind of modern theater, with typical doors, I am sorry, kicking the door in strikes me as a near impossibility.
That's funny, because we have strict gun control in Canada and it's happened a few times here too.
What's a sane response to this sort of thing? I like this one: http://cpontius.wordpress.com/2012/07/22/fear-of-the-dark/ .
There were probably quite a few guns in the audience, this being Colorado and all.
But consider the tactical situation and that he was reportedly wearing a ballistic vest and riot helmet.
How do we know that nobody tried to shoot him?
Just like the Joker, this guy came prepared.
This is like saying we shouldn't outlaw rape because no amount of laws will ever stop a madman from committing rape. Ten psychopaths want to get guns. The guns are legal. End result -- Ten psychopaths get guns. If guns are illegal, then maybe only 5 or 8 or even 9 psychopaths get guns, and they're ten times as expensive because they're illegal. I think that's a reasonable sacrifice.