Shooting
|
|
| Gun control is a "HOT" topic here in the US. Politicians dont want to piss off the NHRA (gun people) because they dont want to lose votes. You do have to have a back ground check to buy a gun legally here, which this last nut job did- he had a clean record. But they are pretty easy to get illegally to. My husband has a couple of hunting guns, but he keeps locks on them. Problem isnt the guns, problem is the evil people using them. We need stronger laws and jail time for criminals. But even with that it wouldn't have mattered in this case. He had no previous records, not even a parking ticket. He had a degree in neuroscience. He just had a evil heart. |
| So sad to hear about the cinema shooting, not everyone should have a right to carry guns, guns seem to be a HUGE problem in the states, especially the accessability to high powered rapid shooting ones. Bless all those that lost there lives just going about and doing every day things. Maybe a weapons as far as high powered stuff needs to be amended in your constitution.  The chap that did this had 4 guns at his licenced disposal, saddest thing ever the youngest victim, dead and her mom hospital with dire wounds, I dont know as a mom wether I after loosing a young daughter under those circumstances to a Pshyco, wether I would want to go on and survive the ordeal that happened God bless all those that lost there innocent lives and all those in hospital recovering and I hope all those that did make it to hospital dont add to the toll of this crazy nut case that had easy access to GUNS and what followed. Shocking to hear what happened.  My heart goes out to all the victims and those wounded too. |
| I feel horrible for the people that lost their life and the victims are in my prayers. That being said, gun ownership just saved a family in my town. Some armed robbers broke into a home and the home owner shot at them grazing one of the robbers, saving his family. He may not been so lucky if he hadn't been armed. I am completely for gun ownership. I am a chick and am completely for responsible gun ownership. More people in my area have guns than don't. (which is probably why stuff like this happens around here so rarely) I also live in one of the states that has some of the most relaxed gun laws. The issue with stronger laws for criminals is that well criminals brake the law, so it would only be restricting the responsible law abiding people that own guns. "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will own guns" |
Parwaz wrote: Looks like once again another person kills lots of people in the US. Why don't they have tighter laws in the US about Guns. Is this a major issue over there as it seems like you get a major shooting by some odd person once in a while. WE don't have a major gun issue in the UK so just wonder what you guys think from the US I would hate to see new gun laws introduced that affected hunters and legitimate sports entusiasts, but one has to wonder why your average person would need automatic/semi-automatic weapons for self-defense  Beyond the laws, culture plays a large role. Even before restrictive gun laws were introduced in the UK, there was a historically low rate of crimes committed with guns. I guess the greater risk there is drunken hooligans at football games getting out of control and killing people with their bare hands and booted feet Americans, historically, think back to the origin of the country, have used guns for self-protection, not just sports, and that mentality is deeply engrained in their culture. As is using guns in criminal acts, which fuels the desire to own a gun for "self-protection", and so it goes. Add to that a culture that idiolizes violence. Nothing is going to change that any time soon. You cannot legislate culture. That said, Norway, as an example, has (to my mind) very sensible gun laws and a predominantly low-violence culture. Which did nothing to prevent the horrible massacre that happened there just over a year ago. Just as what happened in Colorado would not have been prevented short of banning guns outright, perhaps. And even then only law-abiding citizens would be affected. Where there's a will and underlying malice, there will always be a way to kill and maim, unfortunately. Bombing seems to be more popular in your part of the world. Of course, in both the Norwegian and most recent American case, both approaches were used/attempted. Part of me wonders what it takes to produce the miscreant that perpetrated the most recent horror in Colorado. Part of me is almost afraid to look too closely at what level of depravity exists in human nature. Kristine |
Ryleigh wrote: Gun control is a "HOT" topic here in the US. Politicians dont want to piss off the NHRA (gun people) because they dont want to lose votes. You do have to have a back ground check to buy a gun legally here, which this last nut job did- he had a clean record. But they are pretty easy to get illegally to. My husband has a couple of hunting guns, but he keeps locks on them. Problem isnt the guns, problem is the evil people using them. We need stronger laws and jail time for criminals. But even with that it wouldn't have mattered in this case. He had no previous records, not even a parking ticket. He had a degree in neuroscience. He just had a evil heart. I'm convinced you mean the NRA, not the NHRA. The latter is the National Hot Rod Assoc.; totally different group. We don't need more and new laws; we just need the have the existing laws enforced and thats pretty much across the board. I know it sounds cliche. It guns don't kill people, people kill people. It's a stigma against guns. Not long ago there was a man killed by another who kicked him to death but no one was screaming to outlaw Lugs boots. Just overnight there was a guy here who was arrested for aledgelly attacking his girl friend with a leaf blower. They won't force us the have a license to buy, operate or carry one, will they? It's society as a whole and how we think. Vance |
 Achie Bunker knows best,hmmm   Thank's for making me laugh in such a sad and serious matter. It's terrible what happens around the world and now in a movie theather.  We have gun laws, among them all guns should be locked down and you're not allowed to wear guns, not even a knife: Then what? What if the someone had cheched the massmurders bags last year....... What if, what if.....there's always another way. Do we want all that control, does it help? A little maybe? |
| I am a believer that when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. That's the way it is in countries that have strict gun control. When some nutcase commits a crime with a gun taking guns away from the people that didn't do it is not the solution. At the same time I don't see why a private citizen would need a fully automatic assault weapon with a 60 round magazine which is illegal in most states and difficult to get in the rest, unless you're a criminal. Bombs are illegal and it didn't slow down the IRA or islamist extremists. Or a couple we've had here. |
| No one needs an automatic assault rifle and thousands of rounds of ammunition. It was illegal to buy those but that got changed under Bush. How many more people have to die before we wake up in this country. Don't hunt with an automatic. |
| Check your facts, you could buy an assault rifle and large magazines long before Bush. There was a 10 year ban that expired in 2004 and the renewal has yet to be brought before congress. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_As ... eapons_Ban |
| Guns may not "kill people"...but they make it extra quick, easy and efficient for people to kill people. I say this, as a person in a household with guns. We have them for bear protection and target shooting, BUT, when we had a person living in our home who had serious mental health issues we stored them out of the home. The reason for this was that although we couldn't remove every dangerous item from our house, we could at least remove the one that a sudden impulse could make the worst of. |
| I wont comment too much on gun ownership, Americans are stuck with it, for better or for worse, their constitution is pretty powerful. But aside from discussions over gun ownership etc, I think it would be really helpful to focus on better identification and management of mental illness and personality disorders. I think this guy has mental illness issues for sure--note that does not mean he's not criminally responsible! Sad and terrible of course. |
| Gun laws don't mean squat. The guy that did that is pure evil. One of the few things that I remember from high school...A person shot the president and when asked why, he said he wanted to be famous. Well guess what...you will never find his name in a history book and if I remember correctly, anywhere. Sensationalize is something that we in the states do wonderfully. The news is FULL of death and destruction. Do I want to hear about a house fire down the street that every news team is at? NO(yes it happened just down the street from me). Just this morning they interrupted regular programming to show the first court appearance of this jerkwad. EVERYONE knows his name and what he looks like. We will learn where he lived, what he was like as a child, every facet of his life. We will learn why he did this and what he was thinking while he did. Do you want to know this? I sure don't. Lock him up and throw away the key, end of "his" story. Not that I don't feel horrible for those people in Colorado but "I" think that his name and picture should not be known. As for "The people's right to know", maybe a special address you can request his name...for all the good it will do. Will this stop all the other jerkwads from doing something like this? I don't know but I think its worth a try. |
| I'm well aware that assault weapons could be purchased before the ban went into effect, at least there were some protections. Maybe someone that had evil intent was stopped. Something has to be done and if it's not a law what is it, we're suppose to be a nation of laws. |
| I'm not particularly fond of guns, but I understand that people like to have them to protect themselves and whatnot. But, I think it's ridiculous that he could buy a gun like that, legally, I mean, what use is there for it aside from going nuts and shooting people? |
yes Vance I mean NRA, typed to fast and hit an extra letter.  Point being people who want to kill will. More laws wont change that. Just like when a drunk driver kills a family they take his license away. What good is that? Hes already breaking the law driving drunk. Will he suddenly stop because he no longer has a license? NOPE!! People like this with evil hearts will always find a way, law or no law...If he couldn't get the gun leagally he would have found another way to. |
Parwaz wrote: Looks like once again another person kills lots of people in the US. Why don't they have tighter laws in the US about Guns. Is this a major issue over there as it seems like you get a major shooting by some odd person once in a while. WE don't have a major gun issue in the UK so just wonder what you guys think from the US According to Wikipedia: Population United States 313,967,000 Population United Kingdom 63,100,000 It's not a fair comparison you are making regarding the perceived issues of the United States versus the United Kingdom. I happen to love my country and you've made more than one disparaging remark in the past regarding my country and/or the folks in it. I'd like to believe that your intent is not to disparage America or Americans. There are more good people than bad here! We don't need any more laws than we already have. |
| LVSL- thank you for stating it exactly as it is. I was thinking the very same thing. New laws aren't going to change a thing. We already have good ones in place. There will always be people who get a gun legally that shouldn't be able to. I don't think there is a way to prevent that. But truly, if I wanted a gun in my hand in the next 1/2 hour I am CERTAIN I could get one illegally. Gun laws aren't going to change that. The comparison of having a license revoked for DUI is right on the money. The law isn't going to stop that person from getting behind the wheel either. I have had several guns. I have been a target shooter for many years, and I am a great shot. We no longer carry concealed as we don't feel it's is as necessary as when we owned the business. My husband's life was saved on more than one occasion by the use or visibility of a gun. I will not give up these rights, now or ever, just for the false sense of security it may give the ill informed. Shellie |
| Some of the strictest gun laws in the "free world" didn't stop that insane arse in Norway last year. But what if one or two of the victims had a weapon? What if? Sadly, we'll never know. Sometimes folks don't really have a grasp of the physical enormity of the US and the sparseness of the population away from the cities. Some things to keep in mind: All of England is about 200 miles, north to south. Give or take. The entire Eurozone is more comparable to the US, maybe 1/2 or 2/3 of the size of the continental US (not including the giant state of Alaska) A trip from my house to my sister's house is about 200 miles. That trip barely registers on the map of the US:  That's without the giant state of Alaska. Hare's Alaska added (with giant Canada stuck in the middle.  ) UK Population: 63,000,000 California population: 39,000,000 Colorado population: 5,000,000 Population Density: Colorado: 49/square mile England: 1,038/square mile Aurora: 1,940/square mile London: 13,466/square mile Some data from wikipeeingya because I'm too lazy to do real research: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U. ... on_density |
 Ron wrote: Some of the strictest gun laws in the "free world" didn't stop that insane arse in Norway last year. But what if one or two of the victims had a weapon? What if? Sadly, we'll never know. Hm. I think you have Norway confused with the UK, the latter of which does have some of the strictest gun laws in the world. And one of the lowest homicide by gun rates to go with it. I don't see the Norwegian laws as strict at all. Merely sensible. You have to store your weapons securely, yes. (well, duh) And to buy a weapon you do take gun safety and shooting lessons and give a legitimate reason for wanting to own one (self defense is rarely considered a legitimate reason where violent crime, let alone gun crimes are so low, but hunting and sports uses are common). So you have to actually know what the hell you're doing before you get to own a gun, yes. But - and like Shelly in a sense hinted at - where crime is low, there is no great sense of a need to carry concealed weapons. That said, many Norwegians are gun enthusiasts in terms of hunting and rifle related sporting events. Two girlfriends in high school joined a shooting club and took up target practice for fun. Some of the best biathletes in the world have been Norwegians, men and women both. There just isn't that fear you have in this country (and, believe me, having lived in both countries, I know the difference) The psycho responsible for the shootings and car bomb last year purchased his guns legally, in Norway. So it's not like gun ownership is particularly curtailed. It's just that gun violence remains rare. Should the entire country, including its teenagers, which were the main targets, start concealing weapons in case some time in the next century some other mad man comes along and tries a repeat of the nut case from last year? I don't think so. In that particular case there has historically been a strong, strong feeling that a gun savvy armed populace is not a bad thing, and that in turn probably comes from having been invaded by foreign forces. Every country's gun laws are governed by its culture to a certain extent, and that culture is in large part a product of its history. American culture, seen from the outside, is basically incomprehensible, so maybe we shouldn't be so quick to get so defensive when someone questions it. (No reference to you, Ron) The Norwegian response to the masacre last year: "Why in god's name did this happen?" The American response to the most recent Colorado mass shooting: "Where next?" Kristine |
| colorado has liberal concealed carry license laws. century theaters is a gun-free zone per the company. you are requested not to carry even if you have a license on their premises. |
Parwaz wrote: Looks like once again another person kills lots of people in the US. Why don't they have tighter laws in the US about Guns. Is this a major issue over there as it seems like you get a major shooting by some odd person once in a while. WE don't have a major gun issue in the UK so just wonder what you guys think from the US Well, Mister Pot-stirrer,  guess it's just best that you stay right there in the UK, isn't it? We Midwesterners are rather partial to our guns. I have several myself and am licensed to carry. So what? It's our culture and we grew up shooting. I had a job that required spending several hours a day on the highways at all hours of the day and night, before anyone ever knew what a cellphone was. Mr. 40 cal. was my best friend but never had to help me out in the 21+ years on the road. My gun club had no problem letting me in and I always enjoyed shooting targets for practice. BTW, the Twin Towers killed thousands of people with airplanes. The Oklahoma bombings used the same kind of chemical that we use as fertilizer on our crops here. Should we ban them as well? And buses and trains and cruise ships? What happened in Colorado is a tragedy. Deal with the nutcases that are the problem and leave responsible gun owners alone and forget about any new gun laws! |
Mad Dog wrote: Hm. I think you have Norway confused with the UK, the latter of which does have some of the strictest gun laws in the world. And one of the lowest homicide by gun rates to go with it. I stand corrected!Well, it's sad but completely understandable that people are looking for something to make sense, some connection, some common thread to these "rampages". But there isn't any found yet. It's not the Tea Party, Postal Workers, or the Anarchists or the Militias or the Lefts or the Rights, it's just sick people. This is one of the heavy heavy prices we pay for having a relatively free and open society. Is there a way to fix it? Yeah, probably. But we might not like it very much. The proposed gun laws won't do anything. Smaller capacity magazines don't mean much, this guy had all the time in the world to reload, and if reporting is accurate he even had one of his high capacity weapons completely jam. Banning assault rifles based on their looks seems silly to me too but hey, what do I know. By the way, I assume this guy didn't have fully automatic weapons. I used to think that fully automatic weapons were completely illegal, but watching these "reality" TV shows seems to indicate they're pretty darn common. What's up with that? |
| For F sake get a life. I was not or even going on about the bloody country or any other post. Sorry I made a comment about people getting shot by some nut as we don't things like this in the UK that often & it was big news over here. We get the odd person shot over here by the odd nut. Yes you have a need of guns in certain areas in the USA. Some of you just pi** me off you moan about our country ?. I made a comment on a sad event about a issue which a lot dare not. WE have a issue with knifes over here & it gets swept under carpet and about pot stirring Hmm & if you lived with nut jobs trying to blow up the main land like we did in the UK but that is another issue |
| It may have been the way you presented it. You have a tendancy to upset and unnerve (us-in my house) the way you word things. While I'm sure it's unintentional, it seems you post to just about everything. I am not meaning to be cruel or upset you. This seems to be another case of 'two people separated by a common language.' The original post does seem a little pointed . (sometimes your posts just confuse me - but that's just me.) Again, just me, just my thoughts, just trying to explain, not attack or stir things up. I'm sure you'll understand.  Shellie |
| I used to think that fully automatic weapons were completely illegal, but watching these "reality" TV shows seems to indicate they're pretty darn common. What's up with that? ron, in 35 of 50 states you can pay a federal transfer tax($200.00) for class3 weapons and silencers and own them legally. this is an expensive hobby as machineguns range from $5000 to $30000 now. these are serious enthusiasts and shooters from all walks of life and to my knowledge, none of these registered guns has been use in a violent crime to date.  |
Ron wrote: Mad Dog wrote: Hm. I think you have Norway confused with the UK, the latter of which does have some of the strictest gun laws in the world. And one of the lowest homicide by gun rates to go with it. I stand corrected!Well, it's sad but completely understandable that people are looking for something to make sense, some connection, some common thread to these "rampages". But there isn't any found yet. It's not the Tea Party, Postal Workers, or the Anarchists or the Militias or the Lefts or the Rights, it's just sick people. This is one of the heavy heavy prices we pay for having a relatively free and open society. Is there a way to fix it? Yeah, probably. But we might not like it very much. The proposed gun laws won't do anything. Smaller capacity magazines don't mean much, this guy had all the time in the world to reload, and if reporting is accurate he even had one of his high capacity weapons completely jam. Banning assault rifles based on their looks seems silly to me too but hey, what do I know. The semi-automatics used to be illegal but where on a timeline and the law exprired and never renewed nor extended. By the way, I assume this guy didn't have fully automatic weapons. I used to think that fully automatic weapons were completely illegal, but watching these "reality" TV shows seems to indicate they're pretty darn common. What's up with that? |
| Ya know what I found funny, is that the company that sold this guy all the body armor seemed completely in shock about what happened. WTF!?!? What does a civilian need full body armor for? That should of been a red flag right there. What else would he of used it for? |
I have no issues with people who own a gun or belong to a gun club or other things with guns. If I lived in the US would I own one & it would be yes I think. I would agree with Shellie last comment I do like to post things about issues which other people would not. Not pot stirring just like to see other people views on things from other countries as most are diff to us in the UK & yes I can be blunt about things which can be a good thing also bad as well. I have nothing against the US and have been there a few times and its a great place ( They just give you lots of food when you buy dinner for your money  also like your beer. According to Wikipedia: Population United States 313,967,000 Population United Kingdom 63,100,000 It's not a fair comparison you are making regarding the perceived issues of the United States versus the United Kingdom. Not too sure about this comment ? If you going about size we have more people over here per land mass. Yes our issue are diff to yours & I was not trying to make a point UK gun crime vs US gun crime. |
| Disclaimer (once again): Nothing I'll say is implying Americans should have stricter gun control, Americans are stuck with their guns, for better or for worse. One discussion thread that often pops up with these type of shootings, is what if someone (or everyone!) was armed? Too bad there wasn't the "action-movie" hero who when this sick evil f*** pulled out his weapons to kill people, took him down with his own legal weapon etc. I won't discuss the ethics or the sanity (  ) of everyone carrying a gun, but I am interested in the logic, tactics, and logistics of it. This was a very very dark, packed movie theatre (I assume full to capacity, opening night for a hugely anticipated film). Let's say you have 750 people in it, almost all of them complete strangers, and for the sake of argument, let's say everyone was there alone and a stranger to everyone else (and no children). There is a huge variety of clothing styles, age, ethnicity, background etc. Almost no one has advanced tactical training in live fire situations that many police and military get. One guy whose intention is to massacre people pulls a gun and starts shooting, so everyone pulls out their self-defence gun and...? What? Who is the bad guy? Who is the threat? It's dark, it's noisy, people are panicking, everyone is holding a loaded handgun, no one has any idea what's going on except someone is shooting, and if you look at some of these horrible shootings in the past, many of them occur over a very short period of time (read up, if you have the stomach for it, the Port Arthur shooting in Australia where 35 people were killed, many of the people killed were in a cafe where the shooting lasted only 15 seconds). I think that logic dictates that for any individual in that theatre everyone else is a threat. This wouldn't be a computer game where the "good" guys are in red uniforms and the "bad" guys are in green uniforms. I bet there would be a professor of logic who would claim that in this life-and-death situation, where the individual's use of deadly force can be justified, then the only logical thing to do is to shoot everyone else.And what a nightmare for the police and swat team when they show! The cinema is full of 750 armed and dangerous individuals, how would they approach that? Again, everyone becomes equally a threat. Do the police respond with deadly force, if all (that remains) of the 750 people are busy shooting at each other, how do they respond? So would some of these horrible massacres been stopped sooner, saving lives, if more people were armed? Yes, I think they would. But I am also sure some of these horrible massacres would end up being worse, with greater loss of life if more people were armed. It's at best a neutral variable in my opinion. Would you feel more comfortable walking around if everyone was armed? Maybe in the midwest, where many places have very light population density, but what about walking or shopping in Manhattan where you're jostling thousands and thousands of people? I think there'd be a greater risk of a spark going off, so to speak. Again, I am not interested in debating whether Americans should have stricter or looser gun control, I'm just curious in aspects of that scenario I described above (everyone armed). |
Vance wrote: We don't need more and new laws; we just need the have the existing laws enforced and thats pretty much across the board. I know it sounds cliche. It guns don't kill people, people kill people. It's a stigma against guns. Not long ago there was a man killed by another who kicked him to death but no one was screaming to outlaw Lugs boots. Just overnight there was a guy here who was arrested for aledgelly attacking his girl friend with a leaf blower. They won't force us the have a license to buy, operate or carry one, will they? It's society as a whole and how we think. Vance I agree. I'd hate to have anyone take my right to own one away. As soon as lil J is old enough, he'll be at the gun range with us which was our own per-requisite to buying them (not that we didn't both get practice in the military but it wasn't the same). We believe in teaching our kids on how to properly use and hold what we have in our home. Until then, they are just aware of where it is (which isn't attainable to them and in a vault/safe box). |
| Alot of people are armed here. It is very common for someone to open carry or conceal in a grocery store, convenience store, see a gun rack full of rifles in a truck. (I do not live in a super highly populated area) In your senerio, there are too many variables. More often than not people freeze in life or death situations. Having a gun is completely different than having one and shooting someone. It is very possible it would make it worse. Personally, I cant even shoot a deer or elk. (We have the biggest tastest elk here, roosevelt elk.) I can watch other people hunt, kill, gut, skin and chop them into steaks no problem. When it comes to ending its life myself its a no go. I grew up around it, my dad and uncles hunt every season. Ive been shooting for years. Im a pretty good shot. |
Baba wrote: So would some of these horrible massacres been stopped sooner, saving lives, if more people were armed? Yes, I think they would. But I am also sure some of these horrible massacres would end up being worse, with greater loss of life if more people were armed. It's at best a neutral variable in my opinion. Hm. Excellent point. Add to that the shooter was apparently wearing full body armor. Probably in anticipation of people in the audience with concealed weapons. And, Mark, the reason you won't find companies reporting suspicious purchases to the authorities unless explicitly required to by law is that it's bad for business. The bigger issue, which one of the victim's relatives touched on very passionately last night - he was being interviewed on CNN and basically issued a challenge, if not a threat, to the news media - was stop giving these shooters any kind of coverage. His theory, and I believe he has an excellent point as well, is that the kind of losers who commit these atrocities are doing it for the notority (even if, more typically, it tends to come posthumously) and any coverage which focuses on the offender merely fuels the cycle and increases the risk of these kind of senseless attacks in the future. It will be interesting to see how the news organizations respond. I have a feeling he isn't going to go away and is going to make this his mission.  Kristine |
| So what drives a person to do this. He was very bright & don't think he had police record before. You could understand if he was going to attack a certain type people e.g Muslims,Gays,Black People & so on ( don't have a go about me using these types of people as I am using them as a example). He just shot random people in a cinema but the fellow in Norway had a purpose and targeted that type of person's. This person shooting had no logic. As for the media well they loved to lap this type of thing up. If some of you was pissed off with me about my first post about this you should of listen to radio 2 the J.Vine show. He tries to imply that it was Batman was to blame. This type of reporting is rubbish http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/b01l04qf |
Parwaz wrote: So what drives a person to do this. He was very bright & don't think he had police record before. You could understand if he was going to attack a certain type people e.g Muslims,Gays,Black People & so on ( don't have a go about me using these types of people as I am using them as a example). He just shot random people in a cinema but the fellow in Norway had a purpose and targeted that type of person's. This person shooting had no logic. As for the media well they loved to lap this type of thing up. If some of you was pissed off with me about my first post about this you should of listen to radio 2 the J.Vine show. He tries to imply that it was Batman was to blame. This type of reporting is rubbish http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/b01l04qf You could understand if he was attacking a certain type of people? Really? Not to get on you or anything but the way you worded it makes you seem empathetic to racists, hate crimes, mass murders that kill based on race or sexual orientation. The only reason i could understand killing another is in self defense when it is the ONLY option. This man shot people in a theater simply because he is evil and he wanted to kill people. Simple as that. There is no deep seeded reason and stop wasting your time looking for one. |
| I didn't get that from parwaz's post. What I understood is that there seemed to be none of the usual motivations--hatred towards any particular group, but rather that the victims were chosen seemingly at random. The randomness made it particularly hard to comprehend. This kind of attack is so hard to comprehend, I understand why people are looking for something, anything, to help make sense of it. If we can figure out the 'why' maybe we can prevent such things from happening again. |
| e.g Muslims,Gays,Black People & so on ( don't have a go about me using these types of people as I am using them as a example) What did I just Type & what is a example. How does that make mee mpathetic to racists, hate crimes, mass murders that kill based on race or sexual orientation. Get a life |
AnInnocentEvil wrote: You could understand if he was attacking a certain type of people? Really? Not to get on you or anything but the way you worded it makes you seem empathetic to racists, hate crimes, mass murders that kill based on race or sexual orientation. The only reason i could understand killing another is in self defense when it is the ONLY option. This man shot people in a theater simply because he is evil and he wanted to kill people. Simple as that. There is no deep seeded reason and stop wasting your time looking for one. I think Parwaz is saying a motivation might be clearer, though still completely horrible and reprehensible. For instance, a contract killer who kills for money, we can perhaps comprehend the motivation, but that does not mean agreeing with it! I DO think it's very important to discover the motivations and reasoning behind this act, particularly because, unlike most similar events, the perpetrator is still alive (same with the Norwegian guy). Not just to satisfy idle curiosity on the internet, but if there is some underlying mental illness and/or personality disorder, it could help health authorities and law enforcement to detect, manage, and prevent similar acts in the future. And before anyone takes it the wrong way, mental illness or personality disorder does NOT exempt them from knowing right from wrong and exempt them from guilt and justice. The prisons of the US and Canada (and elsewhere) are full of murderers serving rightfully-earned life sentences or on death row despite having diagnosed mental illnesses and personality disorders. Despite Hollywood, claiming "insanity" as a defense is very hard to do with a very poor success rate (for the defendant). |
Guest wrote: I didn't get that from parwaz's post. What I understood is that there seemed to be none of the usual motivations--hatred towards any particular group, but rather that the victims were chosen seemingly at random. The randomness made it particularly hard to comprehend. This kind of attack is so hard to comprehend, I understand why people are looking for something, anything, to help make sense of it. If we can figure out the 'why' maybe we can prevent such things from happening again. Yeah I think this was all that was meant this time. |
| Unfortunately there isnt always a modivation. As hard as it is to understand. Some people are just plan evil. We all want to rationalize things, put a reason behind it, a way to explain something so cruel/evil but in some cases we just need to accept that there are people that evil in the world. The only person i know that has killed someone is a distant relative of mine. He spent most of his life in prison. I have asked him why, it simply was because he wanted to know what it was like to kill someone. No mental illness or personality disorder. He says he regrets it but the fact that he did it just to know what it was like scares the living #### out of me. |
| My goodness what are the odds, how sad. Not sure if anyone mentioned this in the thread sorry re-posting if so. http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/20/aspiring-sportscaster-jessica-ghawi-killed-in-colorado-shooting-narrowly-missed-toronto-eaton-centre-gunfire/ |
| I just wanted to say this is very sad, let's not get away from that. Be nice if we can keep some decorum in this situation and not judge and attack each other, people died. Families lost loved ones. Perhaps Parwaz needs to reread his posts before hitting submit, perhaps you need to think of how others will read it. I always read my posts again and many times find that it could be understood wrong. Like saying should when I should say shouldn't that is huge! Sometimes they sneak through. We shouldn't jump at him either, but he as well shouldn't tell people to get a life. especially considering this post. It seems like this all turned a little inward.And writing this that I found a few mistakes after rereading it and there probably more I missed. So I think we should give Parwaz the benefit of the doubt, I think and hope he means well. And isn't intentionally trying to stir things up. But the "get a life" comment isn't cool |
| CNN stopped referring to him out of respect to the victims & their families. There may never be an official reason why he did this, but I'll bet dollars to donuts is that this kid didn't have much of a social life or much in the way of human interaction or human connections. I believe psychologists have detailed the link between these types of massacres and the life of the shooter up to that point. Often times, the shooter turns out to be a loaner-type of person; one who found it difficult to make human connections. Probably little to no friends and certainly major difficulties interacting with the opposite sex, if it happens at all. Maybe they were picked on and bullied as a child (or even as they were older). They feel as if no one understands them and, even worse, no one will take the time to try to understand them. They probably feel outcast by society. There is so much pain from being shunned by society, they feel the need to lash out at society. They want everyone else to hurt the way they do. And the anger at society in general is manifested as violence. It's too bad that teachers, parents, etc. aren't trained in recognizing the symptoms of these people that are withdrawing from society. Maybe then real help could be offered before such a tragedy transpires. |
| All I know is *IF* I were in that situation, I'd rather have a gun and die trying to shoot the bastard dead than lying on the floor praying for my life. Hopefully at least I'd slow him down so some others could be spared. A scenario where "everyone was armed" and all heck breaking loose with everyone shooting in all directions is just a fantasy. That's not what would happen. People know who the aggressor is. Unless there was more than one attacker and that's not the kind of scenario we've been talking about. That's a war scene and a different story; the pair of shooters in the other Colorado event was the exception not the rule. And I'd wanna be armed then, too. That said, I don't carry because I know that the first rule of carrying a gun is if you pull it out you fire it. I am an excellent shot when the paper targets aren't firing back -if that translates into anything in a real world situation- and I'm not sure I could live with myself after shooting someone dead. But I would and I would not hesitate after drawing the weapon. |
Ron wrote: A scenario where "everyone was armed" and all heck breaking loose with everyone shooting in all directions is just a fantasy. That's not what would happen. People know who the aggressor is. I don't see how you can claim that in this situation? Dark full to capacity cinema (and man, modern cinemas are SO dark), smoke bombs, panic, screaming, very loud distraction from the film, and especially if everyone has a gun? I can definitely understand the sentiment you express, but I wouldn't want to die being shot by a SWAT sniper after shooting a bunch of innocent people by accident. I'd love to hear a swat team guy's opinion on this. It's interesting that congresswoman shooting down in Arizona, the shooter was tackled to the ground, by a guy who was carrying a gun! He realized pulling out his weapon, suddenly he's just as much a "shooter" as the guy he was tackling. Ron wrote: That said, I don't carry because I know that the first rule of carrying a gun is if you pull it out you fire it. Wow, I am super glad the police don't operate with that mentality!! |
Baba wrote: Ron wrote: A scenario where "everyone was armed" and all heck breaking loose with everyone shooting in all directions is just a fantasy. That's not what would happen. People know who the aggressor is. I don't see how you can claim that in this situation? Dark full to capacity cinema (and man, modern cinemas are SO dark), smoke bombs, panic, screaming, very loud distraction from the film, and especially if everyone has a gun? I can definitely understand the sentiment you express, but I wouldn't want to die being shot by a SWAT sniper after shooting a bunch of innocent people by accident. I'd love to hear a swat team guy's opinion on this. It's interesting that congresswoman shooting down in Arizona, the shooter was tackled to the ground, by a guy who was carrying a gun! He realized pulling out his weapon, suddenly he's just as much a "shooter" as the guy he was tackling. Ron wrote: That said, I don't carry because I know that the first rule of carrying a gun is if you pull it out you fire it. Wow, I am super glad the police don't operate with that mentality!! Just wondering... you ever carry a gun? Ever fire one? I was saying that it's unlikely, in fact fantasy that "everyone would be armed" or even a majority unless it was a gun show, and I'd guess unlikely even then. Further I think it is highly unlikely that there would be some sort of Animal House-like food free-for-all with guns. It just doesn't and wouldn't happen that way. Life is not a Three Stooges short. EVEN IF it was in this exact scenario and everyone was armed, everyone would (and did) know that a guy burst into the front of the theater and started firing. They all knew what he was wearing so they clearly could see well enough in reality. Someone is going to turn around and start firing to the back, not aiming at the guy? The innocents are going to injure 70 other bystanders? *I* don't think so. But hey, anything is possible. Secondly I'm not a cop, and I know that a loaded gun is not to be drawn by a civilian to be brandished as a threat. A "stop or I'll shoot" scenario is reserved for people who have tons of training, and they don't do it when someone else is actively being the aggressor. Their goal is to apprehend, mine would be to defend my life. The aggressor should understand that brandishing a weapon is a direct threat and they have no right to expect a reserved reaction from people they are pointing a weapon at, never mind firing. I'd never draw the weapon unless my intent was to fire it as quickly and accurately as possible. Period. That's why I don't. Someday if you decide to carry a weapon, feel free to give a verbal warning and fire a couple of warning shots or something, but I'd advise you to make sure your life insurance is paid up first before becoming a statistic. |
| The guy wasn't wearing a neon pink outfit and jumped up on a stage with a spotlight on him. He apparently was dressed all in black, let off smoke bombs, and started shooting at people who are engrossed in watching the film. So yes, I think it is a bold statement to say you (or anyone) would instantly know who the bad guy was. And it is obviously an exaggeration, for this thought experiment, to say what if everyone was carrying a gun. Ok, let's say 10% were carrying, how many did that full theatre hold? 500, 800? That's still a lot of guns. I mean, some people are saying the public should be carrying loaded firearms, I'm taking that idea and wondering "well, what if they actually do?" I'm not really trying to interpret do they mean only half the people? Only adults over 21? I dunno, just running with the idea. Or another example, the one which actually first made me about this "what if?" scenario. The Virginia State shooting, that involved multiple classrooms, so the public are completely visually separated from the shooter, if (ok not everyone) a lot of the students were carrying, how do they automatically know who the bad guy is? In that case, he was just a student wearing jeans in a t-shirt, so indistinguishable from any other student. I am not bringing all this up to attack gun ownership, I'm really not (read my previous disclaimers). It's really just genuine curiosity that stems from seeing commentators bring up "too bad there weren't other audience members/students etc carrying". Makes me think, well, what if they were? How would that work? I believe my own personal experience with gun ownership is irrelevant. |
| I'd just empathize -- put myself in the theater with a gun in my belt. I'm not turning around and firing, I'm not firing blindly, I'm firing at the guy who is the perpetrator. I assume that the others in a similar situation would be doing the same. Is there a chance that an innocent could get confused and aim at another innocent and then be himself taken down, I guess that's a possibility. But I don't feel it's likely. Also, the folks in the theater only have maybe 10 rounds apiece. This will not last a long time like a Hollywood production. One last thing about drawing your weapon. Just pulling out your weapon has legal consequences. You can't just pull it out if someone is stealing your car (in most states). You generally can't pull it out unless you are already fearful of imminent bodily harm to yourself or another. Otherwise you are the one in trouble. You're not a cop, you don't have the right to brandish a weapon unless you are afraid someone is about to do you serious bodily harm. My opinion is if you're in that position -if you feel your life is in jeopardy- you don't owe the aggressor anything. You have a right to ensure that you are not harmed. I just read about some scenarios where "what if you're surrounded by 5 thugs who don't have guns". Well, I suppose that's why I don't carry a gun. They can have my money. I don't have to live with the legal or psychological ramifications of killing one or more of them. |
| Its really hard to say in a life or death situation what you would do. You really dont actually know til you are put on those situations. People can train all they want but when put in a situation like that they could freeze. Someone with no training could save the day. I remember the first time one of my clients died. I knew my client was going to die on my shift, I prayed that my client would hang on til the next shift. My client didnt, i spent my whole shift thinking that when the client passed i was going to fall apart but i didnt. I held the clients hand while the client died. Some sort of disconnected survival instinct kicked in after, i kept thinking about the other clients, staying together for them (im no good if im a mess and cant help them) and i just followed procedure. It didnt hit me til the next day. How i thought i would react was the complete opposite. You just never know. (For those of you that dont know, im a caregiver) |
Maggie McGee IV wrote: Parwaz wrote: Looks like once again another person kills lots of people in the US. Why don't they have tighter laws in the US about Guns. Is this a major issue over there as it seems like you get a major shooting by some odd person once in a while. WE don't have a major gun issue in the UK so just wonder what you guys think from the US Well, Mister Pot-stirrer, guess it's just best that you stay right there in the UK, isn't it? We Midwesterners are rather partial to our guns. I have several myself and am licensed to carry. So what? It's our culture and we grew up shooting. I had a job that required spending several hours a day on the highways at all hours of the day and night, before anyone ever knew what a cellphone was. Mr. 40 cal. was my best friend but never had to help me out in the 21+ years on the road. My gun club had no problem letting me in and I always enjoyed shooting targets for practice. BTW, the Twin Towers killed thousands of people with airplanes. The Oklahoma bombings used the same kind of chemical that we use as fertilizer on our crops here. Should we ban them as well? And buses and trains and cruise ships? What happened in Colorado is a tragedy. Deal with the nutcases that are the problem and leave responsible gun owners alone and forget about any new gun laws! ^^^ Well put. I agree 100% |
AnInnocentEvil wrote: Its really hard to say in a life or death situation what you would do. You really dont actually know til you are put on those situations. People can train all they want but when put in a situation like that they could freeze. Someone with no training could save the day. Absolutely true.I am glad that you're a caregiver -- if you were a body guard that story reads quite differently. |
Ron wrote: AnInnocentEvil wrote: Its really hard to say in a life or death situation what you would do. You really dont actually know til you are put on those situations. People can train all they want but when put in a situation like that they could freeze. Someone with no training could save the day. Absolutely true.I am glad that you're a caregiver -- if you were a body guard that story reads quite differently.  |
AnInnocentEvil wrote: Its really hard to say in a life or death situation what you would do. You really dont actually know til you are put on those situations. People can train all they want but when put in a situation like that they could freeze. Someone with no training could save the day. I remember the first time one of my clients died. I knew my client was going to die on my shift, I prayed that my client would hang on til the next shift. My client didnt, i spent my whole shift thinking that when the client passed i was going to fall apart but i didnt. I held the clients hand while the client died. Some sort of disconnected survival instinct kicked in after, i kept thinking about the other clients, staying together for them (im no good if im a mess and cant help them) and i just followed procedure. It didnt hit me til the next day. How i thought i would react was the complete opposite. You just never know. (For those of you that dont know, im a caregiver) Very true. And it doesn't get easier as each situtation is a little different. My patient to die was a Do Not Resusitate and I cried when it was over because i was so close to the patient and family. They were better prepared than I was. For clarification, the theater has 16 different movie screens. The rooms vary in size, usually 100-150 seats per theater. Besides the one to two doors that enter from a common hallway (at the back), there are two emergency exits that usually flank the screen in the front. My understanding is he entered through an emergency door. Depending on the lighting outside (very bright or dim), he could easily be seen. There is also an alarm sound that is usually activated when the door is opened (don't want people sneaking in their friends), but I haven't heard anyone mention it going off. I saw an interview with a woman who attended the movie with her boyfriend and their two kids. When it all broke loose, the BF jumped over a rail and escaped. The guy next to the woman helped her shield the kids. The kids were fine, both adults were shot, but doing well. I will refrain from giving my opinion of the BF, but the other guy is a hero. |
CamVal1 wrote: I believe psychologists have detailed the link between these types of massacres and the life of the shooter up to that point. Often times, the shooter turns out to be a loaner-type of person; one who found it difficult to make human connections. Probably little to no friends and certainly major difficulties interacting with the opposite sex, if it happens at all. Maybe they were picked on and bullied as a child (or even as they were older). They feel as if no one understands them and, even worse, no one will take the time to try to understand them. They probably feel outcast by society. There is so much pain from being shunned by society, they feel the need to lash out at society. They want everyone else to hurt the way they do. And the anger at society in general is manifested as violence. Astute. There is no clear cut profile, but that does seem to be a recurring theme. Kristine |
| Just wanted to point out that the shooter in Aurora was dressed in tactical gear and also wore a gas mask to protect against the tear gas canisters he lobbed into the theater. He would not have made an easy target. Also he was captured, not shot down, by professionals. In my opinion, if the audience had been armed, it is likely that other audience members would have been shot and possibly killed by those who were trying to bring down the shooter. Shooting in a panicked situation, in a dark theater, with possibly tear gas does not present the best scenario for even practiced gun owners to hit intended targets. It was, after all, not the firing range. If you talk to police officers or soldiers who have killed in the line of duty, you will learn that taking such action comes with a very profound cost to those who are put into that situation. |
| All true. I understand he had not only a vest, but leggings, crotch and neck protection. I suspect that getting hit with rounds in the vest might have distracted him, and who knows a few shots to the head might have stunned him even if his mask was resistant. Yes to your second part as well -- That's why I chose and still choose not to put myself into that position. It's a choice that I make for myself while vigorously defending my fellow citizen's rights to make their own choices. I used to think that notion was a lot of what this country was all about. |
Ron wrote: It's a choice that I make for myself while vigorously defending my fellow citizen's rights to make their own choices. I used to think that notion was a lot of what this country was all about. I think it still is, at least from an outsider perspective. Though there are always a few calls for stricter gun controls after a tragedy like this, it seems to be a small minority. It doesn't even seem to be a partisan democrat/republican divide, Obama has made no movement or ever mentioned gun control, and very few in congress or senate seem to care about it. Like I said, Americans are pretty much stuck with your guns, for better or for worse.It's also why my personal opinion isn't Americans should be looking at gun control in hopes of preventing or mitigating similar events in the future, but rather look at better identification and management of mental illness and astute law enforcement to try and prevent and mitigate similar events in the future. |
Didn't find exactly what you're looking for? Search again here:
Custom Search
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|