The 'Batman massacre"

[Wrathborne]

http://gma.yahoo.com/colorado-batman-movie-shooting-suspect-phd-student-085940589--abc-news-topstories.html

-----

The largest mass shooting in US history has just happened. At a Midnight showing of 'The Dark Knight Rises' a man entered a theater in full body armor, guns, grenades, and opened fire on the audience.

The guy was caught by the police, said he was ;The Joker' and that his apartment was filled with bombs and traps.

This is just fucking horrible, what the hell is going on inside someone likes this mind?

[Dracarys]

This is what happens with retarded gun laws.

Yeah if you ban them people will still find them, but it makes it a hell of a lot harder than just walking into a store and someone who ops for a knife instead isn't going to get anywhere near as many victims before being put down, people who cannot legally buy or train with guns sure as hell are not going to be aiming too well either.

You give people cheap and easy legal access to death machines and then let them legally train with them and somehow people are constantly shocked when people start dying, every single time this happens.

Not much more to be said about it outside sympathy to the victims families, shitty laws, shitty results.

[Branden_Lucero]

too much shit happenin' lately.

[Wrathborne]

This is what happens with retarded gun laws.

Glad to know your sympathy is matched by your extensive knowledge of US gun laws.

[Rombie]

I kinda have to agree with Dracarys on this Wrath, for lack of Drac's exact wordings - the loose level of investigation and requirements for ownership of gun*s* in the US is an issue. The guy purchased all four weapons used in a short number of weeks. Part of the issue constantly in the US is proliferation of weapons in large numbers when it comes to mass shootings like this. Put better things in place and the chances of this happening drop.

If you limited the allowance of guns with better checks when people are purchasing multiple items would lessen issues a lot of the time with run of the mill attacks. I'm aware limits may change more illegal high level weapon traffiking but that's not the majority of gun owners in the US.

Of course I also read comments by pro-gun owners saying if other people with guns at the theatre had been there they guy would have been shot dropping the casualty rate, and thats a pro-gun american reaction if ever I saw one... guns fighting guns. Thats the way :p

[REmaster]

Pretty fucked up but no suprise in this day and age. When I went to see it earlier today there were two police officers guarding the door and they stood at the back of theater for the whole movie. It felt like I was watching a movie in prison. It's a damn shame when you can't even watch a flick without the possibilty of getting shot.

[Wrathborne]

The problem is that this was also a guy with no past criminal records, that makes it more difficult to know if hes crazy or not.
I'd say that its definitely time to make some changes in the system. The problem also comes down to the amount of bullshit government intervention increasing, and we're having to fight off the government from intruding on damn near everything it seems these days.

I kind if laugh that whenever there is a gun crime in the US, be it shooting spree like this, or armed robbery, or anything involving firearms, and it makes national news the rest of the world laughs at us and says "this is why you shouldn't have guns'.

So whats the solution then? Give up all our guns like most of Europe has? Does that stop armed robbery or shooting sprees over there? Does that stop crooks from getting one if they really want one?

Course it doesn't, as for the pro gun owners comments that if people there had guns they could have shot the guy themselves...They're absolutely right-IF the person who owned a gun is properly trained and knows how to not shoot the wrong people by mistake.

You can laugh at my saying that, I know plenty of folks here will, but you aren't me and I'm not you.

This is about as NRA as I'll get when I say this, a gun is a responsibility.

I grew up around guns, my father owns a gun collection and years before he even took me or my siblings shooing, he constantly told us "These are not toys, you don't point them at anyone or anything, even as a joke".

I've been shooting on and off since I was about 10 years old, from firing one .22 round from a revolver every now and then, to shooting an old WW2 rifle. I've never had an accident with any of my fathers guns(had a pistol get jammed and suddenly go off at a shooting range once, scared the shit out of me and put a hole in the range wall.), neither have my brother or sisters and we all know what a gun isn't. Its not a fucking toy, people who treat it like one are irresponsible and dangerous.

You may go a lifetime and never have to use a gun for self defense, you may have to use it for that one time too.

There are many pro and anti gun arguments we could get into over this, but its all perspective and 'different country, different rules'.

[Rombie]

Yeah, but when it comes to saving peoples lives from someone random going around shooting, should even someone with no criminal record should be allowed to purchase 4 different guns in a matter of weeks without some questions being asked either? If anything this is an obvious point to the flaw in the system that you can apparently only believe someone with a previous criminal offense is capable of this, when in the majority of cases - they have a very clean record till that point.

I'm not saying I'm entirely anti-gun or against people with common sense on the use of weapons. I'm aware of plenty of people personally, not just in the US, with weapons and the common sense of what it means to own a gun. This is more the reason I find the stupidity in saying someone else with a gun should have been there to shoot the guy with the gun though. That's against the point. Thats how you end up with people killing people who don't actually have a gun on them or replica weapons. And as "trained" as you can be, when there is a stressful situation taking place and little time to think things though, people make mistakes.

And unlike some personally I'm fine for the authorties to have weapons because being an officer is to be held accountable for your actions even though our police service don't carry weapons at all times (we have an ADS for that, which is halfway between police and a SWAT style team). But the point of that is supposed to be a deterrant, not an answer of guns against gun releated crime. Thats a point a lot of people never take into account.

I don't think this is 'different country, different rules' at all either. I think it's just frickin' common sense. Your comment on this about a gun being a responsibility is the real truth, but as I've said questions should be asked why anyone would need to purchase multiple weapons in a small space of time or why anyone really needs so many guns to begin with. The average person doesn't need several types of weapons and I think personally a line needs to be drawn between the difference of the right to bear arms and the amount or type of weapons avaliable. And I expect that of any country, not just the USA.

I can't talk for the English laws, but over here we actually have fairly relaxed gun laws too and yet gun offences are quite low even with the numbers. I don't also think numbers are always the issue... We have large numbers of farmers and people living in rural blocks who have multiple weapons and licences but it causes little to no issues. I know Canada as well has quite a large number of weapons compared to the ratio of people, but it far lower gun crimes than the US. There is no one fix to the issue, but I think this incident, like basically most of them have before, should be once again raising more questions about the ability to get so easily armed.

The only other thing I have to say in the end is a lot of people in the US treat the idea of 'the right' of gun ownership as a use it or lose it ideal, or often that any critical comment on the system is paramount to treason towards to the country. As if the ability to be told not to own a gun is only more reason to own a gun or many guns, like a teenager being told they're not allowed to hang out with the 'bad crowd' that will instead only make them do it more. I'd love to believe most people are quite sensible in owning a weapon, and it probably is true, but the risks of people who aren't are far more higher obviously.

And yet many never think like you've said, about the actual point of why it's even worth to own a gun and the responsibility of should you choose to use it. However instead the usual comment is, sadly like one you also made - "You may go a lifetime and never have to use a gun for self defense, you may have to use it for that one time too." How about the fact that if more people thought the opposite, gun crime would be more unlikely to happen. To me numerous reports each year are accidental gun releated incidents. Maybe the idea should be that you may go a lifetime and never have to use a gun for self defense, so why own one? The chances are slim you'd ever need one, and the risks involved in ownership are far higher if you do.

[Black~Crow]

This was terrible. This man obviously was mentally disturbed. On one hand, you can't stop making movies that have violence or disturbing plot lines because there are people who are extremely sensitive to what they see and hear. But, on the other hand, There may be too much violence and disturbing things in the entertainment industry that maybe having a negative effect on society. Who knows what might set someone to go off like a gun wielding lunatic? I never thought Bat-man could.....

[AsteroidBlues]

I'm just going to throw this out there. Guns do not kill people, people do. There are MILLIONS of people out there who own guns, all normal, rational, responsible people who have never and WILL never do something like this. Suddenly, when one mentally disturbed whackjob comes along and commits a travesty like this people want to rag on guns and gun owners. Jesus Christ, do you not realize that crime will still continue? Take away guns, criminals use knives, and with no guns around you're up shit creek just as much before.

I have friends in the UK and Europe in general who say that lack of guns doesn't quell crime. It just means that those who CAN get them (like crime syndicates) are invincible. And quite honestly, our 'gun problem' has kept most people pretty damn safe for the past 100+ years. Look at the shit going on in other countries like riots, genocides, oppressive governments that torture and kill it's denizens every day.

Does any of that make this right? No. But people need to think rationally about the implications that gun bans would hold instead of taking on the kneejerk reaction "NO MORE GUNS!" One final food for thought

Annual Deaths caused by automobiles in the USA (Also considered Deadly Weapons in the eyes of the law)
There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -- one death every 13 minutes.

Annual Deaths caused by guns in the US
According to the CDC in 2006, Last up to date numbers, 30,896 total, of which, 642 accidental, 16,883 were Suicide, 12,791 were Homicide, 220 were Undetermined and 360 by Legal intervention.

Things like poison and "unintentional falls" also WAY outnumber guns deaths. Holy shit, we better ban cars too! *kneejerk reaction* Seriously, when we look at those stats we see that the majority of gun related death is suicide... someone willing to commit suicide will do it with or without a gun. When we take that away, we have approximately 12,000 deaths out of three hundred and thirteen MILLION people in this country.

[Wrathborne]

The only other thing I have to say in the end is a lot of people in the US treat the idea of 'the right' of gun ownership as a use it or lose it ideal, or often that any critical comment on the system is paramount to treason towards to the country

One of the reasons folks are like this, is due to the fact that we're facing an incredibly rotten government right now. Worst we've ever had in my opinion(I dont know my congressional history that well, but we're facing a type of corruption we've never had before), congress is about as effective at representing the country, as prayer is as a birth control method.

What a lot of folks dont realize about the US constitution is what its there for. It's not there to establish a form of government, per say. Its there to protect the people of its country from its own government.

Everyman is given his own individual rights, including the right to guard his home and family with a weapon.

Well as lots of folks across the pond have seen, the problem with the Constitution is that congress makes whatever amendments it wants to change the rules.

The 9th amendment, the right to Privacy, not anymore. Internet activity, interracial marriage, sex, abortion, same sex marriage these all fall under privacy, but that doesn't stop the FBI from spying on what we do online, much less congress getting more involved in peoples sex lives, or who they choose to marry. There are cases against the government spying on its own people, but even if the government loses the case, they're still gonna continue doing so.

All it takes is people to stop caring about guns and an amendment will be added that says "Times have changed, citizens dont need firearms/ a fire arm tax will be issued". I know for certain that they've probably got amendments like this saved up for a rainy day because that's how greasy politicians are.

This is how things are here in the US. Its a fucking plutocracy pretending to be a democracy and its been this way for probably 20+ years now and its just now people are realizing it because of how much more overt the wealthy fuckers have been during election years.

But thats enough off topic banter from me.

[Rombie]

Suddenly, when one mentally disturbed whackjob comes along and commits a travesty like this people want to rag on guns and gun owners. Jesus Christ, do you not realize that crime will still continue? Take away guns, criminals use knives, and with no guns around you're up shit creek just as much before.

Ugh, maybe because one death let alone many deaths by some crazy guy with a gun still points out the simple fact that guns kill? No one questioned crime would automatically go away with any level of changes made but that, for example in this case, if some reviews were done on the guys purchases at the time may have prevented this from happening. And based on earlier events alongside it, could prevent others.

I think I covered most of your points above already but let me just give you my short responses:
- Yeah, I don't think a ban on all guns is an answer, but I think questioning more about why people need so many guns or hell even so much ammunition (the guy purchased 6,000 rounds of ammo!) might be okay to ask. If it was made that you can question people at an airport in the US for mearly looking suspcious after people hijacked planes, simply asking a guy why he purchased so much ammo or purchased so many weapons in a small amount of time doesn't seem like a big deal to me.
- Your point of guns keeping things safer than other countries would be great, except in places with riots, genocides, or oppressive governments tend to have no weapons restrictions what so ever (or in the case of oppressive govt, one that allows them to have all the weapons and no one else to have any). Again, guns to answer for guns is esclation of an issue and not the original point of needing a gun for deterance.
- I'm glad you pulled up numbers of deaths and I'm glad things that should outnumber gun deaths actually do, but this is all missing the point which is the sensibility of proper gun ownership... an endless debate over the rights to and the conseuqences of owning a gun. Your point on car crash deaths shows this to me very well. A car is owned for transport options, the number of cars in the US way outnumbers guns, but people own cars for driving not specifically for crashing into people (unless they're crazy, or drunk, or both).
However a gun exists for no purpose other than to kill something, so - and as I agreed with Wrath - proper responicibilty should be taken for gun ownership. Problem is not everyone does. And the risks for irrersponcible gun ownership is far higher than other things because of their purpose, as this shooting and all others show. Sadly one (or more) crazy person(s) shooting up a movie theatre (or University, School, Army ground, or any other location) has more heavy merits as to the risks of loose freedoms of gun control.
- Your comments would likely be very different if you were in that theatre and/or had been shot by a gun (or nearly) by some crazy guy.
- And the irony of your statement of knee jerk reaction is a knee jerk reaction to respond to a debate over gun safety as automatically = gun ban. Personally this is beyond my point, might not be everyone's, but I'm just saying a middle ground of review is better than one or the other. I wouldn't want joe average to have access to anti-tank rifles or nukes, but some people think restrictions should go away and allow anyone to defend themselves with anything they want. I think high powered rifles and semi-automatic machine guns and pistols are well beyond what anyone would need for self defense but many countries allow it. I think simple balance and review to the system, like all systems, is what is needed.

@ Wrathborne - Interestingly I'm currently reading an article from the Washington Post which is saying based on the lack of response other than general condolences from the current govt, that it's unlikely changes to gun laws will happen anytime soon because of both the risk to any parties campaign and also current polls show less people want changes to gun control and either want things to stay as they are or, or as crazy as I personally find it, even more relaxed (probably based on the current semi and full auto rifle controls). So at least you don't have to worry about any changes anytime soon.

I won't go beyond that into the concepts based on issues with the US constitution and how the govt is run otherwise, that's just a can of worms we can't put back in once opened.

[AsteroidBlues]

Ugh, maybe because one death let alone many deaths by some crazy guy with a gun still points out the simple fact that guns kill? No one questioned crime would automatically go away with any level of changes made but that, for example in this case, if some reviews were done on the guys purchases at the time may have prevented this from happening. And based on earlier events alongside it, could prevent others.

I think I covered most of your points above already but let me just give you my short responses:
- Yeah, I don't think a ban on all guns is an answer, but I think questioning more about why people need so many guns or hell even so much ammunition (the guy purchased 6,000 rounds of ammo!) might be okay to ask. If it was made that you can question people at an airport in the US for mearly looking suspcious after people hijacked planes, simply asking a guy why he purchased so much ammo or purchased so many weapons in a small amount of time doesn't seem like a big deal to me.
- Your point of guns keeping things safer than other countries would be great, except in places with riots, genocides, or oppressive governments tend to have no weapons restrictions what so ever (or in the case of oppressive govt, one that allows them to have all the weapons and no one else to have any). Again, guns to answer for guns is esclation of an issue and not the original point of needing a gun for deterance.
- I'm glad you pulled up numbers of deaths and I'm glad things that should outnumber gun deaths actually do, but this is all missing the point which is the sensibility of proper gun ownership... an endless debate over the rights to and the conseuqences of owning a gun. Your point on car crash deaths shows this to me very well. A car is owned for transport options, the number of cars in the US way outnumbers guns, but people own cars for driving not specifically for crashing into people (unless they're crazy, or drunk, or both).
However a gun exists for no purpose other than to kill something, so - and as I agreed with Wrath - proper responicibilty should be taken for gun ownership. Problem is not everyone does. And the risks for irrersponcible gun ownership is far higher than other things because of their purpose, as this shooting and all others show. Sadly one (or more) crazy person(s) shooting up a movie theatre (or University, School, Army ground, or any other location) has more heavy merits as to the risks of loose freedoms of gun control.
- Your comments would likely be very different if you were in that theatre and/or had been shot by a gun (or nearly) by some crazy guy.
- And the irony of your statement of knee jerk reaction is a knee jerk reaction to respond to a debate over gun safety as automatically = gun ban. Personally this is beyond my point, might not be everyone's, but I'm just saying a middle ground of review is better than one or the other. I wouldn't want joe average to have access to anti-tank rifles or nukes, but some people think restrictions should go away and allow anyone to defend themselves with anything they want. I think high powered rifles and semi-automatic machine guns and pistols are well beyond what anyone would need for self defense but many countries allow it. I think simple balance and review to the system, like all systems, is what is needed.

@ Wrathborne - Interestingly I'm currently reading an article from the Washington Post which is saying based on the lack of response other than general condolences from the current govt, that it's unlikely changes to gun laws will happen anytime soon because of both the risk to any parties campaign and also current polls show less people want changes to gun control and either want things to stay as they are or, or as crazy as I personally find it, even more relaxed (probably based on the current semi and full auto rifle controls). So at least you don't have to worry about any changes anytime soon.

I won't go beyond that into the concepts based on issues with the US constitution and how the govt is run otherwise, that's just a can of worms we can't put back in once opened.

1: I agree. 6,000 rounds should have been a red flag and should have been questioned further.
2: Have you paid any attention to the events in Libya? Apparently not.
3: Guns are not solely intended to kill people, just as cars are not solely intended to transport people. Both have multiple uses. I find it disturbing that everyone is so willing to go to the Government to protect us from ourselves. That sets up a dangerous precedent that short sighted people never seem to grasp. Every day people want rights to be taken away from citizens for "safety's sake". We're already losing our privacy, but people seem to be okay with that too.
4: I've actually HAD a gun pointed at me in a criminal fashion, so I have good experience on that.
5: What you say about average joe wanting access to anti-tank rifles and nuclear weapons is quite ludicrous, and only reflects the viewpoints of ZERO responsible gun owners of which there are millions upon millions. You obviously have no clue as to what is or is not useful for personal defense for average joe, let alone uses outside of defense such as hunting, recreation, etc. The sad fact is; until humans reach world peace (which will be near impossible given our nature), there will always be a need to have something to defend ones self. What people don't realize is that giving a citizen the ability to arm himself has kept this country from going full on orwellian. As corrupt as the Government is right now, would YOU trust them to do "what was best for you" while having no viable way to defend yourself? If so you are sadly misled.

[Rombie]

2. You didn't pay attention to my comment. I said tend to, I didn't say all. Obviously just like the US has it's laws other countries have different laws. Not all politicial and social unrest is uniformly the same. But the point still is your original comment has little weight of trying to compare the allowance or restrictions stoping the US from becoming like that. Countering further I somehow doubt that more control also would lead to more chance of that either.

3. Prey tell then what is the other means for guns? This will be entertaining. Keep in mind if you go back and re read my comment I never said people on either gun or car transport. I just said kill and transport in general. As for your go to the govt issue, I love the double standard that always comes out over gun control and always playing that card. When it comes to other issues people are often begging for more govt control. Lets say fuck you to any social welfare programs. Give everyone a gun and let them sort it out. Thats a joke again, btw. Anyway, to further this you claim we shouldn't ask governments to review things but yet you think a guy picking up 6000 should have been a red flag. You need some sort of review for that to happen. You're talking about freedoms that are just a figure point. If gun ownership had more controls to stop the crazy people from doing this still wouldn't stop a responsible owner then. The changes would be there only to look out for these sorts of red flags. Provides you aren't buying enough guns and ammo to take out a small town. That's not taking away average persons rights. Youre entering a contract when requesting a licence for each gun that agrees to the background check and keeping your history on file. Seems more fair than other things the govt already does with data on you. And usually without even asking or letting you know.

4. My antitank and nuke comment was a joke. But thanks for accusing me of somehow not knowing what I am talking about in a topic where I am fairly sure if you look at my comments I am not exactly coming off as uneducated about. Going back to the point there is no reason to own a semi auto machine pistol for defence or even hunting. If it is used on a human or animal tends to make a mess, so I question why it and similar weapons are considered defence items. But again this misses entirely where I started which is just common sense on gun ownership.

As much as anyone person never agrees with everything one govt does, you have to take the good with the bad. People fear change and difference. A lot of people think that goes hand in hand with the high gun crime rates in the US. That's a different debate for another time. I think fear is justified in some cases but in gun restrictions how can change that might save lives be looked upon as a bad thing. The fear of being shot by a crazy person should be worse than having to jump through an extra couple of hoops to own a gun. Especially if you're a responsible person.

[Inferno04]

I personally find the fact that this has become ammunition to be one of the most disturbing things. People using it as an excuse to say, "See, the Occupy/Tea Party is EVIL." or "SEE, THIS IS WHY WE SHOULD HAVE/BAN GUNS."

How about arguing over guns, we instead discuss how little this country cares about its own citizens' mental health? It seems so easy these days for any 'normal' person to snap. People are coddling the mentally ill with excuses rather than getting them the proper help they need. People are so out of touch they may not even notice when their friends or loved ones seem to be near a breaking point. Does anyone talk to each other anymore, make sure we're okay? I wish that was the discussion that this event has started, THAT would really help us to fix. But no. It's just another, "GUNS ARE BAD MMKAY?" argument.