The Linguini Occurrence Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 The problem with "the right to bear arms" is there's a helluva lot of people out there with anger issues who should NOT have access to guns, and if they don't then they can't do what this joker guy did. That's why I try to avoid getting into fistfights or arguments with strangers. Not because I'm afraid of getting beaten, but because I'm concerned about the possibility of getting stabbed or shot.I went to school with a kid who was obsessed with Rambo and war games. One day he was partying in a cul-de-sac with a few others when a couple nearby homeowners broke up the gathering and verbally confronted the kid. What did the kid do? Sped back to his home, put on camouflage clothing, threw on a black ski mask, grabbed a couple guns, went back to the cul-de-sac, and shot the two homeowners more than 19 times with armor-piercing bullets. Chances are if the kid wasn't able to get his hands on those weapons, the two homeowners would still be alive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zint Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 The issue at hand is not about the guns, but rather about the desires of a person to commit murders.Exactly!So therefore,isn't the greater issue the ease with which such people can legally obtain these weapons?Have you seen the list of weapons this guy had?How is that justified?You don't need an arsenal to go hunting.You don't need weapons like that to belong to a hobbyist gun club.You don't need weapons like that to defend your home.There should be a system at the very least that requires one to explain why they need such weapons,and numerous ones at that.The statistics have been done to death...in Russia this,in Denmark that...whatever.People are dying unnecessarily regardless of the statistics.There is a deep problem here that is still unaddressed.Instead of screaming second ammendment at the top of their lungs every time this happens,they should be sitting down and trying to figure out how to implement a red flag system..at the very least,make it difficult for guys like this to obtain numerous weapons,without..at the very least receiving a visit from the Feds or something.Quoting statictics from Russia didn't help the 12 people who lost their lives at a fucking Batman movie last night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Linguini Occurrence Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Instead of screaming second ammendment at the top of their lungs every time this happens,they should be sitting down and trying to figure out how to implement a red flag system..at the very least,make it difficult for guys like this to obtain numerous weapons,without..at the very least receiving a visit from the Feds or something.Problem is, guys like that have no red flags. The dude was a doctoral student whose entire history of crossing the law involved nothing more than a single speeding ticket. And I hate to say it, but the guy planned the shooting really well. He chose that particular movie not only because he knew the theater would be packed, but also that people would just assume his outfit was a way to promote the movie. He didn't have to sneak into the theater because of the way he was dressed, he went right through the front door and bought a ticket. And when did he start shooting? Right during a scene in the movie where there was shooting, so that people would assume the sounds of gunshots were coming from the movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PappyTron Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 The issue at hand is not about the guns, but rather about the desires of a person to commit murders.Exactly!So therefore,isn't the greater issue the ease with which such people can legally obtain these weapons?Have you seen the list of weapons this guy had?How is that justified?You don't need an arsenal to go hunting.You don't need weapons like that to belong to a hobbyist gun club.You don't need weapons like that to defend your home.There should be a system at the very least that requires one to explain why they need such weapons,and numerous ones at that.The statistics have been done to death...in Russia this,in Denmark that...whatever.People are dying unnecessarily regardless of the statistics.There is a deep problem here that is still unaddressed.Instead of screaming second ammendment at the top of their lungs every time this happens,they should be sitting down and trying to figure out how to implement a red flag system..at the very least,make it difficult for guys like this to obtain numerous weapons,without..at the very least receiving a visit from the Feds or something.Quoting statictics from Russia didn't help the 12 people who lost their lives at a fucking Batman movie last night.We can only look at hard facts. The facts are that the majority of gun crimes are committed with illegally held guns by career criminals and that the violent crime rates for people who have permits to carry are much lower than the average for the United States. That is to say that legal gun owners make safer citizens, statistically, than those who aren't. Moving on from that, if someone wants to get hold of a gun then they will and literally no amount of government intervention or "red flags" will prevent that. Crime is, broadly speaking, no higher than it has always been and I believe that the gun ownership in American has gone up 4-5 fold since the end of the 2nd world war yet gun crime has not risen anywhere near in line with that. It's a very sad fact but some people just want to destroy, as the Joker said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeppelin Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 The issue at hand is not about the guns, but rather about the desires of a person to commit murders.Exactly!So therefore,isn't the greater issue the ease with which such people can legally obtain these weapons?Have you seen the list of weapons this guy had?How is that justified?This, right here, is why I don't like the arguments about guns in the first place. A 24 year-old PhD student needs an AR-15 Assault Rifle, why? Needs a Remington shotgun, why? Glock pistols... why? There are no legitimate reasons a person needs guns like that. None. No one can place a statistic, a club, any kind of prestige factor, anything in front of me that justifies someone owning that kind of weaponry. Nothing whatsoever. "The right to bear arms" - I'll never get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AxlisOld Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 News just broke..he bought the guns legally."A right to bear arms"...woo-hoo! The guns were held legally - so what?I own guns and I've never walked into a theater and shot it up and neither have any of the dozens of gun owners that I know.You didn't..this guy did.That way of thinking is more dangerous than this guy ever was.Somebody might, so nobody can? Fuck off. I could make a miniature nuclear reactor with a bunch of smoke detectors, should we stop using Americium in them because somebody might? Household chemicals can be used to make bombs, should we stop selling them because somebody might? The point is not to blame what he used to kill people, the point is to find out why the fuck we aren't looking to diagnose people like this. #1 on the chopping block, this piece of shit's mom. If you know your kid is unstable you should probably fucking tell someone. Whether it was bought legally or not, he was going to get a gun, I get it, people died and it's a tragedy, but we're not going to go into gun policy lock down mode because of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forsaken Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Someone at work told me the guy had his apartment or house wired with explosives for the police when they tried to bust down his door. Is this true? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomasMeadow Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Someone at work told me the guy had his apartment or house wired with explosives for the police when they tried to bust down his door. Is this true?When I was in the chow hall eating thats what they said on the TV. Never heard more about it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gunns Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Yes it is but luckily the cops went through his window They said it can take days to disarm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desperado Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 News just broke..he bought the guns legally."A right to bear arms"...woo-hoo! The guns were held legally - so what?I own guns and I've never walked into a theater and shot it up and neither have any of the dozens of gun owners that I know.You didn't..this guy did.12 people are dead,over 50 injured,and you're asking so what?The news is sad, no doubt. However, in the wider statistical scheme of things the more gun friendly states in the US have lower gun crime rates in general. Norway has a very high instance of gun ownership, relatively speaking, and the mass murder of last year aside, has very low murder rates.The issue at hand is not about the guns, but rather about the desires of a person to commit murders. I am physically in England as I type this, so guns are pretty much illegal here, yet I could buy a handgun or shotgun and from some street people and have it here in a few hours. Or, look at it another way - Russia has very low gun ownership yet a very high murder rate.exactely.I'm not a gun person at all but this is true.and sad sad news Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rock4eva Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 we haven't had a mass shooting to my knowledge since that day in 1996.Virginia Tech was pretty bad...I'm talking Australia, not America. Whenever we hear of a mass shooting the first thing we think of is "has to be America". Sad but true. Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since the gun laws changed in 1996/7 but we hold the highest civillian mass shooting record (in modern times). A legally bought gun by someone without the mental capacity to use it properly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Lahey Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rock4eva Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 News just broke..he bought the guns legally."A right to bear arms"...woo-hoo! The guns were held legally - so what?I own guns and I've never walked into a theater and shot it up and neither have any of the dozens of gun owners that I know.You didn't..this guy did.That way of thinking is more dangerous than this guy ever was.Somebody might, so nobody can? Fuck off. I could make a miniature nuclear reactor with a bunch of smoke detectors, should we stop using Americium in them because somebody might? Household chemicals can be used to make bombs, should we stop selling them because somebody might? The point is not to blame what he used to kill people, the point is to find out why the fuck we aren't looking to diagnose people like this. #1 on the chopping block, this piece of shit's mom. If you know your kid is unstable you should probably fucking tell someone. Whether it was bought legally or not, he was going to get a gun, I get it, people died and it's a tragedy, but we're not going to go into gun policy lock down mode because of it.Afraid so, this isn't a case of "somebody might" it's a case of "somebody did" and despite the fact you can own a gun & use it responsibly doesn't change the fact that many others can't. You can't "diagnose" whether someone is likely to go on a shooting spree, this was someone studying neuroscience & we are yet to see if there were any signs he could do this (apart from owning so much weaponry he clearly didn't need to own). Do you know how many people report someone who they think is unstable & possibly dangerous only to be told "there's nothing we can do as they've committed no crime"? His Mum would have no idea he could do something like this or, upset at knowing he owns dangerous guns could have said something only to be told the above or, he has bought the guns legally therefore there is no crime. Does everyone have to pay for what others do? Yes. I have read that now the theatre group AMC is stopping all dressing up at these type of movies because of this person's actions. You'll no doubt hate this, when I read it my first thought was the same - such a treat to take kids or a group of friends to go to a midnight viewing of a movie dressed up & all there to have fun will no longer be taking place. Because some people drink/drive/kill we ALL have to be breath tested & have a limit, it's just the way life is. Like it or lump it if it saves lives then rules need to be in place. The arsenal he had in his possession is just plain ridiculous - don't blame his Mum but blame the stupid laws that allowed him to buy these legally without caring what he planned to do with it all in suburbia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forsaken Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 The ultimate fear mongerer piece of shit.Someone at work told me the guy had his apartment or house wired with explosives for the police when they tried to bust down his door. Is this true?When I was in the chow hall eating thats what they said on the TV. Never heard more about it?Was just curious, didn't know what happened with that situation. I imagine they got the shit defused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gunns Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rock4eva Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 That poor, poor woman. To listen to her description is mind blowing, she has to live with this for the rest of her life. Not easy as you can't erase the pictures from your mind of what you see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDeeds Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 I'm watching the 20/20 special on it on ABC. They're about to air the interview they did with the mother of one of the killed victims. This bothers me a lot. I mean, sure she consented to this interview, but I don't really like this taking advantage of victim's families while they are in an odd state of mind from shock. I mean, it's still less than 24 hours ago since this happened, plus this interview is probably a couple hours old. This just doesn't seem right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Estranged Reality Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 This is just devastating. I read about it right before I went to bed last night, as it was happening, but I didn't realize quite how huge it was. This is the biggest shooting in American history, and it's going to be another 9/11 or Columbine - not in scope, but in terms of how it's going to impact the country. Security is gonna get revamped at a lot of places like movie theaters, and for the future of cinema houses this will always be one of the first things people think of. Another really sad thing? Might have already been posted here, but one of the 12 dead was an aspiring journalist. She tweeted about going to see the film just a couple hours before the shooting, and then it turns out people researched today and she survived ANOTHER shooting in June that left (i think) two people dead. Imagine how her family feels? To have a child survive of a shooting and then die two months later in another? What can be going through their minds?It's just very sad all around - nothing good can come of it. I won't really mention the impact it'll have on the film because it would seem tasteless, but it also sort of pains me in a selfish way I suppose to know that The Dark Knight trilogy will forever have this nasty sidenote in history - the film will always be known for this horrific act. Similar to The Matrix, but at least The Matrix merely inspired someone - this shooting literally occurred during a screening of the film, so it'll always have that stigma or whatever you want to call it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gunns Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 (edited) It's not right but the demand from th public to see things like this is high so they will forever continue to do it.I know it doesn't really help but I hope all the living family members of the victims and victims themselves are financially compensatedIt's so weird when i heard this unfolding live over the police radio, I heard the cops talkin to dspatch about trying to substantiate the number of deceased and the dispatch told police that all the victims were sent to three different hospitals , I then typed in Colorado shooting in google with search results from the last hour and there it was on all the news sites Edited July 21, 2012 by Gunns Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Estranged Reality Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 it is pretty crazy that you were randomly listening to a local police radio and picked it up.but the families deserve no compensation from the filmmakers, if that's what you're implying? they had nothing to do with it whatsoever, and based on what's been said so far, the only ones liable may be the theatre operators for not having better security around the fire escape, etc. to disallow people from coming in and out. could be a safety violation and thus a legal loophole for them to get money.but the filmmakers are guilt free in the sense that they have no accountability for how some crazed lunatic is going to respond to their characters - which, mind you, have been around since the 30s anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gunns Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 I meant compensation from those news organisations interviewing the victims family/friends as well as the government to help with funeral costs and future costs of trauma, illness etc which Obama has alluded to doing so already thankfully Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zint Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Gotta love the homey in his ballcap who went Piers Morgan tonight and basically told the world that he jumped the balcony and ran out of the theatre to his truck,leaving his girlfriend inside with their four month old baby and the 4 year old stepdaughter.Trying to look legit with crocodile tears in his eyes.You don't jump the railing and run brah,you dive on your loved ones and sheild them best you can.So out at the truck,he tries to call her in the theatre on her cell to see if she's ok. just-fucking-unbelieveableSidenote: who the fuck takes a four month old and a four year old to a midnight showing of an ultra violent movie? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Estranged Reality Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 oh, my bad.i've missed some of what's been going on with it the last few hours - was at work all day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gunns Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 it is pretty crazy that you were randomly listening to a local police radio and picked it up.but the families deserve no compensation from the filmmakers, if that's what you're implying? they had nothing to do with it whatsoever, and based on what's been said so far, the only ones liable may be the theatre operators for not having better security around the fire escape, etc. to disallow people from coming in and out. could be a safety violation and thus a legal loophole for them to get money.but the filmmakers are guilt free in the sense that they have no accountability for how some crazed lunatic is going to respond to their characters - which, mind you, have been around since the 30s anyway.I don't think the cinemas owner was even there because the cops requested for the cinema to turn on the lights in the carpark and they said the manager would have to call their boss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Estranged Reality Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Sidenote: who the fuck takes a four month old and a four year old to a midnight showing of an ultra violent movie? i agree with you, but honestly, i've seen a lot worse. it's only a PG-13 movie. i'm more surprised they'd have their kids out that late, rather than sitting in that movie.i went to see freddy vs jason when it came out almost a decade ago - this was a hard R, horror franchise movie with gore aplenty, sex/nudity, bad language - and this couple a row ahead of me had their little girl who couldn't have been older than 4 or 5 - not young enough to be oblivious, not old enough to really understand the stuff either.i wanted to say something to them, it pissed me off, and this was when i was only a teenager myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.