Mass shooting at Batman premier.

I completely agree with you and I am not "anti-gun", I've owned rifles and shotguns in my life and have no issues with owning them for home protection.

However, if this sfincter had only owned a single-shot rifle that had to be reloaded manually a lot of those people would have gotten out alive. There are crazy people out there, letting them have access to high-grade semi-automatic weapons just makes it much easier for them to do lots of damage.

I'm blaming the guy 100%, but I'm not crazy about how easy it was for him to do this.

S.D. wrote:

I completely agree with you and I am not "anti-gun", I've owned rifles and shotguns in my life and have no issues with owning them for home protection.

However, if this sfincter had only owned a single-shot rifle that had to be reloaded manually a lot of those people would have gotten out alive. There are crazy people out there, letting them have access to high-grade semi-automatic weapons just makes it much easier for them to do lots of damage.

I'm blaming the guy 100%, but I'm not crazy about how easy it was for him to do this.

Crazy people are barred from owning firearms right now. Sadly, criminals don't follow the law. That is why they are criminals.

It's unfortunate that someone didn't smoke-check this SOB with their CCW. Note that this was a "gun free zone" and that worked out great. Herp derp.

S.D. wrote:

I completely agree with you and I am not "anti-gun", I've owned rifles and shotguns in my life and have no issues with owning them for home protection.

However, if this sfincter had only owned a single-shot rifle that had to be reloaded manually a lot of those people would have gotten out alive. There are crazy people out there, letting them have access to high-grade semi-automatic weapons just makes it much easier for them to do lots of damage.

I'm blaming the guy 100%, but I'm not crazy about how easy it was for him to do this.

I dont think it was that easy. He had to apply for a license, go through both a local and federal check for each weapon, convince either the local police chief or mayor to sign off on the a signature from the local police/mayor, and then he was approved.

Going from the police report, this guy had only a speeding ticket or two on his record. He was clean - really clean. Given his knowledge of explosives, I think if he hadnt used the guns he would have just blown everyone up a la Timothy McVeigh. He obviously meant to hurt a lot more people given how his apartment was wired.

Fat Freddy wrote:

You guys oughta check out the "Dark Knight" message boards at IMDb today... needless to say, they're lit up like a Christmas tree with all kinds of nonsense.

Some highlights...

People are petitioning Warner Bros. to withdraw the film from theatres out of respect for those killed, or for fear of copycat incidents.

Meanwhile, Batman Fanboys are crying because they think that the shootings will either A.) taint the film's reputation forever and therefore ruin Christopher Nolan's chance for an Oscar; or B.) Negatively affect its opening-weekend box office. Ummm, not looking at the big picture much? Twelve people are dead, and you're worried about whether or not the film will still open at #1? Good Lord.

There are even some conspiracy theorists who think that the shooter must've been hired by Disney/Marvel Studios in order to ruin the movie's opening weekend so that "Avengers" will remain Summer's box office top dog... I would hope these people are simply trolls partaking in some good ol' fashioned Internet douchebaggery at the expense of others, but you never know.

...and that's after only skimming the topics for a few minutes... Lord knows what other insanity is going on if you dig deeper.

I would hate to be a board moderator over there today....

Apparently the film is performing rather strong at the box-office(est 70 - 75 Million), 3rd ALL-TIME opening gross behind The Avengers and Potter 7 and it is expected to perform stronger in the coming days if the "smoke has cleared"... but the big question is, whether or not the incident created a negative financial impact to the movie, well nobody knows for sure

The Heath Ledger Death was a blessing in disguise I'm not sure with this one, seems like it created some sort of paranoia amongst the movie - going masses.

It will still be a huge hit, in a few days the paranoia will wear off and people will go see it.

I've had a classmate in college who was diagnosed with violent form of Schizophrenia, he attempted to stab the whole class with his butterfly knife, inflicted two people, he was an A-lister too, then he was asked why he did it he simply said "God spoke to me and I don't want to fail him"...this had me thinking, it COULD be Schiz!

The Westboro Baptist Church showed up at a vigil for the victims of the shooting.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/22/westboro-baptist-church-aurora-shooting-vigil_n_1693375.html

Required Fields wrote:

The Westboro Baptist Church showed up at a vigil for the victims of the shooting.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/22/westboro-baptist-church-aurora-shooting-vigil_n_1693375.html

Now there are some folks worth shooting!

I usually find myself to be pretty tolerant, but the moment something (be it a person, a corporation, a religious establishment, etc) promotes intolerance and bigotry, that gets on my nerves.

The Westboro Baptist Church is a prime example. The victims and their families deserve nothing but respect and dignity, and I hate to see twats like the WBC ruin that.

Wurthless wrote:

I usually find myself to be pretty tolerant, but the moment something (be it a person, a corporation, a religious establishment, etc) promotes intolerance and bigotry, that gets on my nerves.

The Westboro Baptist Church is a prime example. The victims and their families deserve nothing but respect and dignity, and I hate to see twats like the WBC ruin that.

I think the ability to freely express an opinion, and even be criticized for it, is one of the freedoms I appreciate the most. Even groups like WBC have the ability to express their opinions regardless of how unpopular they are, just as pro-homosexual groups did yesterday.

WBC isn't a "Church," so we shouldn't even dignify them by using that word. They're not even a "cult." They're a hate group, plain and simple.

...and I eagerly await the day that they picket the wrong funeral and end up receiving an epic beat down ... on live TV.

Tragic - classic USA, though....

exact33 wrote:

Guns dont kill - people do

Yeah, i mean ban guns wouldn't change anything. It's easy to get guns if you want to own them. Here in Germany we have extremely strict gun laws (even BB Guns and Softair Weapons can't just be bought, games like Paintball are only allowed for adults..) - yet we had our fair share of idiots running amok, killing people (The Erfurt massacre from 2002 made headlines around the world) and they got guns or they just create their own weapons, like in 1964 when a guy built a flamethrower and killed 10 people, injuring over 20 more.

It's always a tragedy when this happens and it's sad to see that people always jump to the quick "ban it all" conclussion. Instead of banning everything (Since the Erfurt massacre here in Germany we have that huge "ban video games" discussion because some politicians think video games can turn some normal human being into a amok running sfincter) instead of looking for the real reasons. Most of the people who do something like this come from a poor background, have basically no future (and know it) and are just angry at everyone for their own failure.

On a sidenote i think all those conspiracys that now turn up from "It was staged by Marvel to sabotage DC" to "It was a government thing" are quite disgusting.

Fat Freddy wrote:

WBC isn't a "Church," so we shouldn't even dignify them by using that word. They're not even a "cult." They're a hate group, plain and simple.

...and I eagerly await the day that they picket the wrong funeral and end up receiving an epic beat down ... on live TV.

amen

IMO, and strictly IMO, no civilian human being needs to own an automatic weapon. Automatic weapons should be restricted for the military and special units of law enforcement. Even semi-automatic, IMO, should be barred from civilians.

I don't care about what "rights" we supposedly have.

I don't care what kind of training the person gets.

I don't care about gun collectors, enthusiaists, whatever.

I don't care that "guns don't kill people".

I know that criminals would still find a way to get their hands on them...they're criminals...we're not.

Nobody, nobody, nobody outside of the military/law enforcement has ANY NEED of an automatic weapon...none...zero.

If you're a law abiding citizen, a hunter, whatever, you have no need of a g***@mned machine gun. If you can't be satisfied with a single-shot rifle, shotgun or pistol then you don't need to own a damn gun.

Again, IMO. I know all the "rights" arguments, and I don't care. We have a right to protect ourselves, and our families, which anyone can do with a 6-shot revolver or a shotgun. You don't need a machine gun to protect your family or kill a deer.

I feel sympathetic to the families of the victims but I wonder how many shootings like this happen that dont get Media attention. From what i Heard the guy responsible had illegal automatic weapons, I really am trying to stay away from the news and stuff on this because all it does is makes me angry. Angry that irresponsible sfincter give gun owners a bad name. Angry that this happened, Angry that so much national attention is given to this but not to every shooting incident. Angry just plain Angry.


Shawn you are right we dont need an automatic to kill a Deer (it ruins the meat)

Personally if you ask me the guy responsbile should be locked in a room and made to watch home videos of the people he killed and if he dozes off shock him till he pisses himself and resume the videos and after so many months of it. Lock him in a padded room for the rest of his worthless life and then about once a year take him out and make him watch the vids again.... Death would be too good a punishment for this sfincter!

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

IMO, and strictly IMO, no civilian human being needs to own an automatic weapon. Automatic weapons should be restricted for the military and special units of law enforcement. Even semi-automatic, IMO, should be barred from civilians.

I don't care about what "rights" we supposedly have.

I don't care what kind of training the person gets.

I don't care about gun collectors, enthusiaists, whatever.

I don't care that "guns don't kill people".

I know that criminals would still find a way to get their hands on them...they're criminals...we're not.

Nobody, nobody, nobody outside of the military/law enforcement has ANY NEED of an automatic weapon...none...zero.

If you're a law abiding citizen, a hunter, whatever, you have no need of a g***@mned machine gun. If you can't be satisfied with a single-shot rifle, shotgun or pistol then you don't need to own a damn gun.

Again, IMO. I know all the "rights" arguments, and I don't care. We have a right to protect ourselves, and our families, which anyone can do with a 6-shot revolver or a shotgun. You don't need a machine gun to protect your family or kill a deer.

You can choose to be a victim all you would like. I don't. You are also woefully ignorant of firearms and crime but your reaction is the usual emotional nonsense to senseless slaughter. Criminals obtain firearms illegally, this is why they are criminals. This occurred in a "gun-free zone" which morons believe magically protects them. It doesn't. Your safety and that of your loved ones is your responsibility not the government's.

Timothy McVey, took out an entire building with a truck load of fertilizer. Were guns used in 911? Perhaps if we ban box cutters, the twin towers would still stand. Or maybe if we ban knives no stabbing deaths or rapes would occur. What could we ban to stop another unibomber or chem-attack in our mail system?

My point is that it's people, it's our culture that is the problem. No amount of banning anything will change, stop or limit senseless evil like this. The blurring of right & wrong, personal ideology trumping acceptance of reality, ignorance of history and abandonment of morality has helped spawn and increase this kind of senseless killing, really around the globe. PURELY MY OPINION.

Witchfinder wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

IMO, and strictly IMO, no civilian human being needs to own an automatic weapon. Automatic weapons should be restricted for the military and special units of law enforcement. Even semi-automatic, IMO, should be barred from civilians.

I don't care about what "rights" we supposedly have.

I don't care what kind of training the person gets.

I don't care about gun collectors, enthusiaists, whatever.

I don't care that "guns don't kill people".

I know that criminals would still find a way to get their hands on them...they're criminals...we're not.

Nobody, nobody, nobody outside of the military/law enforcement has ANY NEED of an automatic weapon...none...zero.

If you're a law abiding citizen, a hunter, whatever, you have no need of a g***@mned machine gun. If you can't be satisfied with a single-shot rifle, shotgun or pistol then you don't need to own a damn gun.

Again, IMO. I know all the "rights" arguments, and I don't care. We have a right to protect ourselves, and our families, which anyone can do with a 6-shot revolver or a shotgun. You don't need a machine gun to protect your family or kill a deer.

You can choose to be a victim all you would like. I don't. You are also woefully ignorant of firearms and crime but your reaction is the usual emotional nonsense to senseless slaughter. Criminals obtain firearms illegally, this is why they are criminals. This occurred in a "gun-free zone" which morons believe magically protects them. It doesn't. Your safety and that of your loved ones is your responsibility not the government's.

I'm not choosing to be a victim. I'm choosing to make sense. Why does anyone outside of the military/law enforcement "need" a machine gun? You can quote gun/crime stats all day long, it doesn't change the fact that civilian people don't "need" machine guns. Maybe I am "ignorant" of the stats...I don't care. I know (and acknowledged) that criminals would find a way...they always do. I'm not stupid. I also know that all that "gun free zone" crap is meaningless. If someone wants to sneak in a gun (or walk in with one in plain sight), they're going to.

Yes, my family's safety is my responsibility. Protecting my family can be done w/ a bat, a knife, a lead pipe, a revolver, a shotgun, a hunting rifle...I don't need an uzi or an AK-47 to protect my family. I don't live in Iraq.

Suppose 2 or 3 civilians leagally carried in licensed automatic weapons (I don't know if CO has that or not). They might have "cowboyed up" and started firing back at the guy. Then you have a flurry of gunfire in both directions, potentially hitting some that may not have been hit in the first place. That makes a lot of sense, right?

The world is not perfect, it's never going to be. It makes me sad, sick and angry that someone could do this. But he was going to do it anyway. If it were not these families, it would have been others in another movie.

All this being what it is, I still say civilians don't "need" machine guns.

Quote :

My point is that it's people, it's our culture that is the problem.

I agree with this too. Banning guns doesn't change anything any more than arming people does.

Although I agree with Shawn in this aspect,it's all opinion and there's really no right or wrong in this thread except for one thing. The word is spelled sphincter.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Witchfinder wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

IMO, and strictly IMO, no civilian human being needs to own an automatic weapon. Automatic weapons should be restricted for the military and special units of law enforcement. Even semi-automatic, IMO, should be barred from civilians.

I don't care about what "rights" we supposedly have.

I don't care what kind of training the person gets.

I don't care about gun collectors, enthusiaists, whatever.

I don't care that "guns don't kill people".

I know that criminals would still find a way to get their hands on them...they're criminals...we're not.

Nobody, nobody, nobody outside of the military/law enforcement has ANY NEED of an automatic weapon...none...zero.

If you're a law abiding citizen, a hunter, whatever, you have no need of a g***@mned machine gun. If you can't be satisfied with a single-shot rifle, shotgun or pistol then you don't need to own a damn gun.

Again, IMO. I know all the "rights" arguments, and I don't care. We have a right to protect ourselves, and our families, which anyone can do with a 6-shot revolver or a shotgun. You don't need a machine gun to protect your family or kill a deer.

You can choose to be a victim all you would like. I don't. You are also woefully ignorant of firearms and crime but your reaction is the usual emotional nonsense to senseless slaughter. Criminals obtain firearms illegally, this is why they are criminals. This occurred in a "gun-free zone" which morons believe magically protects them. It doesn't. Your safety and that of your loved ones is your responsibility not the government's.

I'm not choosing to be a victim. I'm choosing to make sense. Why does anyone outside of the military/law enforcement "need" a machine gun? You can quote gun/crime stats all day long, it doesn't change the fact that civilian people don't "need" machine guns. Maybe I am "ignorant" of the stats...I don't care. I know (and acknowledged) that criminals would find a way...they always do. I'm not stupid. I also know that all that "gun free zone" crap is meaningless. If someone wants to sneak in a gun (or walk in with one in plain sight), they're going to.

Yes, my family's safety is my responsibility. Protecting my family can be done w/ a bat, a knife, a lead pipe, a revolver, a shotgun, a hunting rifle...I don't need an uzi or an AK-47 to protect my family. I don't live in Iraq.

Suppose 2 or 3 civilians leagally carried in licensed automatic weapons (I don't know if CO has that or not). They might have "cowboyed up" and started firing back at the guy. Then you have a flurry of gunfire in both directions, potentially hitting some that may not have been hit in the first place. That makes a lot of sense, right?

The world is not perfect, it's never going to be. It makes me sad, sick and angry that someone could do this. But he was going to do it anyway. If it were not these families, it would have been others in another movie.

All this being what it is, I still say civilians don't "need" machine guns.

Do you know how many shootings there have been with legally registered machineguns in the United States since 1934? Of course you don't, but I do. The answer is one and that shooting was done by a dirty cop near Dayton, Ohio. So how is your scheme helping?

They have places where only the police and military are armed. Those places are called police states and I don't think you'd want to live there either.

Are you actually arguing that someone with a legal CCW (which is not "automatic") could not have prevented some/all of the deaths in that theater? All the law enforcement literature will show that to stop a mass murderer you need to engage him immediately. Once that happens they do one of two things - surrender or kill themselves. It happens time and time again.

If you are saying that you wish that certain weapons did not exist then wish away. It's not going to happen.

Quote :

Do you know how many shootings there have been with legally registered machineguns in the United States since 1934? Of course you don't, but I do. The answer is one and that shooting was done by a dirty cop near Dayton, Ohio. So how is your scheme helping?

Again, I don't care. People don't need machine guns, leagal or otherwise. I stated it was simple opinion when I started.

Quote :

They have places where only the police and military are armed. Those places are called police states and I don't think you'd want to live there either.

I never said that. I said people don't need machine guns. I never said they did not need rifles, shotguns, or revolvers. Machine guns are combat weapons. Only those engaging in combat need them. They are not made to shoot targets, or keep burglars out of one's house, or shoot potential food sources. They are intended to kill other people. Period. That's why they are made.

Quote :

Are you actually arguing that someone with a legal CCW (which is not "automatic") could not have prevented some/all of the deaths in that theater?

No. I am arguing that civilians don't need machine guns. I am arguing that, while they may have taken the guy out sooner, they could also have caused more (unintentional) harm. I'm arguing that the guy was going to do it anyway and allowing civilians to have machine guns doesn't change that any more than NOT allowing them to have them.

Quote :

All the law enforcement literature will show that to stop a mass murderer you need to engage him immediately. Once that happens they do one of two things - surrender or kill themselves. It happens time and time again.

I have no doubt...and that is what law enforcement should do.

Quote :

If you are saying that you wish that certain weapons did not exist then wish away. It's not going to happen.

I'm not wishing anything didn't exist. I'm only saying that there is no legitimate, rational reason to allow civilians to obtain and own automatic weapons. My statement was about machine guns, not non-automatic weapons. We have a right to bear arms, to protect our families, to hunt animals, to shoot at targets on weekends, whatever...but we don't need machine guns to do that.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Quote :

Do you know how many shootings there have been with legally registered machineguns in the United States since 1934? Of course you don't, but I do. The answer is one and that shooting was done by a dirty cop near Dayton, Ohio. So how is your scheme helping?

Again, I don't care. People don't need machine guns, leagal or otherwise. I stated it was simple opinion when I started.

Quote :

They have places where only the police and military are armed. Those places are called police states and I don't think you'd want to live there either.

I never said that. I said people don't need machine guns. I never said they did not need rifles, shotguns, or revolvers. Machine guns are combat weapons. Only those engaging in combat need them. They are not made to shoot targets, or keep burglars out of one's house, or shoot potential food sources. They are intended to kill other people. Period. That's why they are made.

Quote :

Are you actually arguing that someone with a legal CCW (which is not "automatic") could not have prevented some/all of the deaths in that theater?

No. I am arguing that civilians don't need machine guns. I am arguing that, while they may have taken the guy out sooner, they could also have caused more (unintentional) harm. I'm arguing that the guy was going to do it anyway and allowing civilians to have machine guns doesn't change that any more than NOT allowing them to have them.

Quote :

All the law enforcement literature will show that to stop a mass murderer you need to engage him immediately. Once that happens they do one of two things - surrender or kill themselves. It happens time and time again.

I have no doubt...and that is what law enforcement should do.

Quote :

If you are saying that you wish that certain weapons did not exist then wish away. It's not going to happen.

I'm not wishing anything didn't exist. I'm only saying that there is no legitimate, rational reason to allow civilians to obtain and own automatic weapons. My statement was about machine guns, not non-automatic weapons. We have a right to bear arms, to protect our families, to hunt animals, to shoot at targets on weekends, whatever...but we don't need machine guns to do that.

You do understand, that this guy did NOT use a machingun, right? I am not sure you do.

Witchfinder wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Quote :

Do you know how many shootings there have been with legally registered machineguns in the United States since 1934? Of course you don't, but I do. The answer is one and that shooting was done by a dirty cop near Dayton, Ohio. So how is your scheme helping?

Again, I don't care. People don't need machine guns, leagal or otherwise. I stated it was simple opinion when I started.

Quote :

They have places where only the police and military are armed. Those places are called police states and I don't think you'd want to live there either.

I never said that. I said people don't need machine guns. I never said they did not need rifles, shotguns, or revolvers. Machine guns are combat weapons. Only those engaging in combat need them. They are not made to shoot targets, or keep burglars out of one's house, or shoot potential food sources. They are intended to kill other people. Period. That's why they are made.

Quote :

Are you actually arguing that someone with a legal CCW (which is not "automatic") could not have prevented some/all of the deaths in that theater?

No. I am arguing that civilians don't need machine guns. I am arguing that, while they may have taken the guy out sooner, they could also have caused more (unintentional) harm. I'm arguing that the guy was going to do it anyway and allowing civilians to have machine guns doesn't change that any more than NOT allowing them to have them.

Quote :

All the law enforcement literature will show that to stop a mass murderer you need to engage him immediately. Once that happens they do one of two things - surrender or kill themselves. It happens time and time again.

I have no doubt...and that is what law enforcement should do.

Quote :

If you are saying that you wish that certain weapons did not exist then wish away. It's not going to happen.

I'm not wishing anything didn't exist. I'm only saying that there is no legitimate, rational reason to allow civilians to obtain and own automatic weapons. My statement was about machine guns, not non-automatic weapons. We have a right to bear arms, to protect our families, to hunt animals, to shoot at targets on weekends, whatever...but we don't need machine guns to do that.

You do understand, that this guy did NOT use a machingun, right? I am not sure you do.

I came in, saw gun/weapons talk...decided to voice my general opinion on automatic weapons...nothing more.

I'll go away now.