Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / Colorado Aurora Tragedy.

Author
Message
CoffeeGrunt
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2007
Location: England
Posted: 22nd Jul 2012 23:36
Wow, Tom. I hope that when you put that plan to the families of these victims, and blame them for it, that they're carrying guns.

You can suggest these things without becoming an arse.

I would hate to lie in your little world of constant fear and paranoia, where startled woman have Glocks in hand every day. How many accidental shootings would occur?
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 23rd Jul 2012 00:00
Quote: "Well, he had to walk in didn't he? I heard he used a rifle, so, I would expect people to stop him before he got to that point."


Assuming they saw him carrying it and it wasn't well concealed, I suspect if he had been caught somebody would have either told him they can't carry one in the theatre or called the cops. But if people should carry a gun to protect themselves in a movie theatre (as you suggested), then somebody carrying a gun into a movie theatre wouldn't be suspicious.

When people realised, there were shots already being fired, the conditions were as I stated.

DeadTomGC
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Aug 2010
Location: LU
Posted: 23rd Jul 2012 00:21 Edited at: 23rd Jul 2012 00:27
Quote: "Who can decide such a thing I must wonder."


Quote: "That $1.5 million is calculated by observing what kind of pollutants and breaches in safety we allow in society."



@CoffeeGrunt
*facepalm*
It's not that people should carry guns to use them. It's that people should carry guns so that they don't need to use them. After all, it is very unlikely that any particular person would need to use a gun. However, so that it is even less likely, people in general should carry them.

Also, when an entire country is doing something "wrong" and think it is right, ( I use quotes here because what they do is not wrong. People could choose to make guns illegal and therefore choose to not carry guns.) who would you blame? I could choose to blame nobody, or I could choose to blame everybody. I happened to blame everybody here.

@Quik Well, You don't need to worry about shooting a gun. It is immensely unlikely you will ever need to. I think though that even people like you should carry a gun even as a bluff against criminals or any other hostile force.

In general I think it'd be good to note that gun control laws don't actually save lives overall.(They also don't even do a good job of controlling guns) This should make sense considering that shipping a nuke into America isn't difficult at all. We are not a secure country. We largely rely on trusting one another to not, well, be insane. So, yes, I think it would be better if more people carried guns in general.

EDIT: Hey there president... Perhaps... Kind of a shame that people were not observant enough. Even then though, it takes time to get 50 rounds off. If someone had been nearby who had not been gassed, he/she may have been able to minimize our losses.


Slow Programmer
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Apr 2006
Location: USA, Tennessee
Posted: 23rd Jul 2012 00:34
So much misinformation in this thread it is pitiful. I would violate the AUP to explain it so I want go there. I do want to point out one fact though. The building this tragedy happened in is a gun-free area. There are signs posted telling people that guns cannot be carried on the premises. This is the policy of the owner of the property and must be adhered to by people legally permitted to carry that visit the property. This is why no law abiding people were armed to defend themselves. The law obviously had no effect on the bad guy.

There are two kinds of computer users. Those that use Macs and those that wish they did.
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 23rd Jul 2012 00:55 Edited at: 23rd Jul 2012 00:57
Quote: "Kind of a shame that people were not observant enough. "


It is possible to conceal a gun, even a rifle. Unfortunately neither of us were there, we can only rely on the information conveyed through the news. It's hard to become an 'expert' on the situation, given the conditions, having everybody and their mother packing could have increased casualties, because they would be panicking and trying to preserve their own lives and the lives of their loved ones. Carrying a gun doesn't give the nerves, aim and focus of an FBI Agent. People aren't trained to handle such a situation.

It might have been somebody had the opportunity to pull a gun out and put a bullet in the guy's head, but the situation could also have been a lot worse. This, we do not know.


Regardless, the blame of the situation falls on the murderer. Everybody should have walked into that theatre safe from such a psychopath.

Quik
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 23rd Jul 2012 01:06
Quote: "@Quik Well, You don't need to worry about shooting a gun. It is immensely unlikely you will ever need to. I think though that even people like you should carry a gun even as a bluff against criminals or any other hostile force."


I dunno, but I don't feel like carrying around weapons at all - I don't like the idea of believing everyone and noone is a suspect.

Quote: "Quote: "Who can decide such a thing I must wonder."

Quote: "That $1.5 million is calculated by observing what kind of pollutants and breaches in safety we allow in society."
"


I don't see how that answers my question though.
Who decides such things? Why? Who gives them the right to do so?



Whose eyes are those eyes?
Kezzla
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2008
Location: Where beer does flow and men chunder
Posted: 23rd Jul 2012 02:40
Quote: "In general I think it'd be good to note that gun control laws don't actually save lives overall.(They also don't even do a good job of controlling guns)"



in port Arthur Tasmania, a mentally disturbed man who had been collecting automatic weapons and ammunition quite legally, walked into a crowded restaraunt, set up a video camera, pulled out an automatic weapon and opened fire. 35 killed, 20 more injured.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Bryant

After that time very strict gun laws have been introduced in Australia. This has not happened again(touch wood).
automatic and semiautomatic weapons are banned.

to get a gun license you pretty much need to be a farmer, a police officer or a member of a gun club. Basically your reasons for needing a gun are questioned and if they aren't justified your application is rejected.

People with gun licenses can still get pistols and bold action rifles, but they have fewer rounds(restrictions on capacity) and slower fire rate.
They must be locked unloaded in a vault, with the ammunition locked in another vault at a separate location.
if you are transporting a gun it must be in its case unloaded with the bolt removed and you must be going directly to or from the place of shooting.
The police and bank security guards are the only people allowed to carry a gun let alone a loaded gun in public.

Shootings where a person is killed or injured are quite rare here, with the exception of bikies firing guns at each others club houses.
and even then they are using pistols and rifles. It would be a lot worse if they were using automatic firearms.

There are just very few guns in general circulation and most of them are registered.

You can argue that guns don't kill people, people kill people. I completely agree with that.
But a person who wants to kill can kill people more quickly and easily with a gun than without one.

That's the basis for our gun laws, and there is no doubt they work well.

Sometimes I like to use words out of contents
CoffeeGrunt
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2007
Location: England
Posted: 23rd Jul 2012 04:25
I gotta be honest, large scale gun attacks are few and far between outside the US, it seems. Norway had that tragedy, but had never really had anything of the sort before in its history, so it was as shock. We have the occasional gunman shoot some people, or someone like Raul Moat comes along very rarely.

I just feel that a civilian arms race is the wrong way to go. And blaming them for not being armed is just wrong too. I assume Tom plays Call of Duty a lot, and assumed that it was like No Russian, except every had AKs in it and killed the terrorists or...something. I dunno, can't imagine what goes on it there.

I mean really, how can you live a life starting at the shadows, fearing every man who walks by in case they have a gun? That's hell for me, in any country with any stance on gun laws.
ionstream
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2004
Location: Overweb
Posted: 23rd Jul 2012 04:31
Tom, are you seriously blaming the people in the theater for their deaths because they were not carrying guns so that they could shoot him? Is this because you "heard he was using a rifle"? I imagine you think you'd be able to just go Rambo on him and maybe get into a cool fight scene and come out the victorious hero in the end. In real life, no one besides someone trained in combat and emergency violent situations would be able to keep that much composure in a tiny theater full of screams, running people, and tear gas. The only person to blame for the murders is the murderer.

Aaron Miller
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Feb 2006
Playing: osu!
Posted: 23rd Jul 2012 05:27
Quote: "Unfortunately neither of us were there"

Without looking at context, that made me go "... wut?"

Quote: "So life is only worth money? Right."

Fun fact (I didn't see anyone mention this, did I miss it?) the death penalty costs more than life in prison.

I did say it was a neutral statement.
(Does this qualify as trolling? Do I win?)

Quote: "If ones life costs over x money, let's just kill them, we don't need em anymore."

Though, I will argue this point with you. What's more humane? Life in prison (a pain which grows every day), or just death? Death is a natural part of life. Prison isn't. Freedom is removed from you, and your life's quality deteriorates. If you want to argue humanity (which it appears you're doing so), the death penalty seems more humane. (It's quick (once the process actually starts) and painless.) The person in question also commits the act completely knowing their punishment. In this particular case, it was speculated that man expected to be shot and killed there. He has deliberately taken life with no justifiable cause. He planned ahead. He made booby traps to attempt to take more life when he died. It's not like he's an asset to society, or even just not contributing. What was he doing? Saving people from seeing that movie? No. (Also, haven't seen the movie; not saying it's a bad movie.) The "sanctity of life" is devoid of meaning for a "person" when that "person" obliterates it by killing multiple people for no reason.

Quote: "Who gives them the right to do so?"

The prisoner when they're:
(1) directly, and knowingly, responsible for murdering innocent people
(2) found guilty of said crime

Quote: "Lock him in a room and throw away the key, give him a slice of bread and a cup of water each day for the rest of his life."

Or some stinky tofu. Yum.

This thread is a bit tl;dr for me to comment on much else.

Cheers,
Aaron

Libervurto
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Jun 2006
Location: On Toast
Posted: 23rd Jul 2012 05:33
This is the sort of thing I'm talking about: http://timelines.latimes.com/deadliest-shooting-rampages/
It might as well be called American serial-killers greatest hits! If this isn't glamorizing murder I don't know what is.

Shh... you're pretty.
Quik
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 23rd Jul 2012 11:07
Quote: "Though, I will argue this point with you. What's more humane? Life in prison (a pain which grows every day), or just death?"


Unless the person wants to die, then isnt prison the more humane one?
Death is end of the road - with death there is no more - provided there is no heaven etc.
No more feelings. No more family, no more anything.
In prison, you still HAVE feelings. You still have all that is - life, although more restricted than otherwise.


I would rather live life in prison than die. Now, I am against lifetime prison, but still.



Whose eyes are those eyes?
Aaron Miller
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Feb 2006
Playing: osu!
Posted: 23rd Jul 2012 11:38
Quote: "No more feelings. No more family, no more anything."

Do you suppose that that person cares if someone else dies, then? Did he care about their feelings?

Quote: "Death is end of the road - with death there is no more - provided there is no heaven etc."

If an ape managed to get hold of a gun, shot everyone around you (your children, your parents, your siblings, your friends, your girlfriend, etc) and now has it pointed at you, still loaded, and the ape "knew what it was doing" (let's assume it was trained to do this, kay?) and you just happened to have a loaded gun on you, would you shoot it? Perhaps there's a situation here where the ape would still kill you if it can move at all.

For this argument's sake, let's suppose that you managed to cage the ape, gave it a fair trial with a jury of its fellow primates, and they all found said ape guilty. Now the ape is somewhere secure. Oh no! That secure place closed down due to financial issues. Or, perhaps something else happened. The ape is being transfer. During transfer said ape manages to get hold of a gun or other weapon, or was simply able to run off. (Very unlikely, but stick with me on this.) There's a chance the ape could get away. Now it tracks you down, because you ratted it out (and it's somehow able to comprehend this). It's going to try to kill you. What do you suppose the chances are now, not knowing that it escaped, that you would be able to cage it again? Significantly less. Suppose it wasn't given life in the cage. It's an ape. It's not going to reform a decision it planned out knowing what would happen. Now its time is up. It's going to go after you. Why? Because you put it in the cage. Maybe it's not even going to go after you, it may go after someone else. Randomly. Perhaps, a mother taking her child to see the new Batman movie. Oh hey, look at that. They're dead now. Because said ape's life is somehow valuable, and sacred. Because, yes, there's a small chance (probably much smaller than the ape getting out eventually) the ape could reform and realize that it's decision to kill and wound a bunch of people was probably not the smartest thing in the world. So, that ape's life should be spared because once it's grey and old it might be able to do something useful! Granted, that ape is likely no genius so it won't be using its mind. And, it's grey and old so it won't be able to do much physical work. Plus, its resumè as a mass-murderer could possibly make the employer it's applying to feel sympathetic to its situation.

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing a very strong argument on your end. These are things I've considered before. I'm have to ask that you disprove my rationale more effectively.

Quote: "provided there is no heaven etc."

Assuming there is one, and its opposite, do you really suppose he would really be going there? Don't you suppose that if there is one, that whoever is responsible for granting access will choose what's best? And if so, who are we to dictate that direction (by saying "Oh no, you deserve to live, this is okay. Just a slap on the wrist for ya;" choosing death would mean said judgment would fall to whoever is responsible for that sort of thing then).

Assuming there isn't one, then it is better that such a destructive, and evil entity not exist in our midst at all. He could hurt other prisoners, who may only be in prison for less serious (but still serious enough to be in with him) offenses.

Quote: "Unless the person wants to die, then isnt prison the more humane one?"

Quote: "I would rather live life in prison than die. Now, I am against lifetime prison, but still."

If you commit a crime like that, what you want doesn't matter. You've given up that choice, knowing that others would decide your fate, whatever that may be.

Quote: "Now, I am against lifetime prison, but still."

Your arguments make more sense to me now. Thank you for clarifying that.

----

Also, note that I'm not arguing that if someone murders that they should get the death penalty. This is an extreme case. It's fairly obvious what the guy did. There are tons of witnesses, footage, evidence, etc. He even tried to (indirectly) kill those who try to protect us (ignoring the corrupt). (I'm referring to the police, of course. They investigated. Place was booby trapped. They suspect it was intended for them.)

We should probably stop discussion of this though. It seems to be a bit political. Feel free to email me your response if you like. If you use gtalk at all, I'm also available via IM (see email address).

Cheers,
Aaron

Dark Java Dude 64
Community Leader
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Sep 2010
Location: Neither here nor there nor anywhere
Posted: 23rd Jul 2012 11:50
I think this man deserves solitary confinement for the rest of his life. According to wikipedia, he is already there and on suicide watch as of now. I think he needs to be there forever.
Quik
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 23rd Jul 2012 12:22
Quote: "our arguments make more sense to me now. Thank you for clarifying that."


Let's just say, I value life of all kinds quite high.



Whose eyes are those eyes?
Poloflece
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 14th May 2010
Location: Australia
Posted: 23rd Jul 2012 14:31 Edited at: 23rd Jul 2012 14:33
Quote: "Keeping him alive costs money"

I believe (not verified info) that putting someone on death row can prove to be equal or more expensive than a life sentence.

edit: missed this
Quote: "Fun fact (I didn't see anyone mention this, did I miss it?) the death penalty costs more than life in prison."


Quik
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 23rd Jul 2012 14:35
Just for the record - if my tax money were to go to keeping people in prison, alive, away from peoples harm, i'd gladly pay it, rather than paying to kill someone.



Whose eyes are those eyes?
Benjamin
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 23rd Jul 2012 14:41
It's very easy to say that he should suffer for what he did, but no one knows his mental state. I can't be the only one here that thinks it's backwards and barbaric to blindly punish someone for what they did, without taking everything into account.

While I don't agree with taking someone's life, it'd probably be cheaper and more humane to put him down. I can't imagine it'd be more expensive than paying ~60 years of prison accommodation.

As for others carrying guns, that's not going to stop someone crazy from doing something like this. If you're messed up enough that you can go into a theatre and kill random people, I think you're messed up enough to not worry about whether others are carrying guns or not.



Support a charitable indie game project!
Thraxas
Retired Moderator
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Feb 2006
Location: The Avenging Axe, Turai
Posted: 23rd Jul 2012 14:48 Edited at: 23rd Jul 2012 23:45
Quote: "It's very easy to say that he should suffer for what he did, but no one knows his mental state. I can't be the only one here that thinks it's backwards and barbaric to blindly punish someone for what they did, without taking everything into account.
"


This came up in a previous discussion. Personally I think it's irrelevant. We seem to live in a society where there is always an excuse for abominable behaviour.

I don't agree with death row. I do believe in the death penalty. But for me it's not a matter of cost.

Why should this person get to live? I honestly don't care about the way it would make his family suffer. There's 12 families suffering right now because of this guy's actions. IMO alive in terrible conditions > than being dead.

Quik
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 23rd Jul 2012 14:52
Quote: "We seem to live in a society where there is always an excuse for abominable behaviour."


If you are sick, it's not necessarily your fault is it..?
If someone put some weird drug in you, which makes you go berserk, then it's hardly your own fault is it?

Quote: "Why should this person get to live?"


Matter of perspective, and from mine: Everyone, deserves to live. Everyone, life is too holy to waste.



Whose eyes are those eyes?
Benjamin
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 23rd Jul 2012 15:38
Quote: "Personally I think it's irrelevant."


How forgiving of you.

I guess if a mistreated dog kills a child, you also think that dog should be punished (ignore the fact that we'd usually just have it put down because the lives of other animals are far less important, even though humans are very closely related in terms of genetics).

I guess every time some severely autistic person accidentally damages something or injures someone they should be punished, because whether or not they could help it or whether or not they knew it was wrong is irrelevant. Or if a severely depressed person with a distorted view of the world can't help but lash out, they should be punished for it. Admittedly that last case isn't so black and white, but I hope you see my point.

Quote: "Why should this person get to live? "


Why should anyone? What makes one life more valuable than another?



Support a charitable indie game project!
CoffeeGrunt
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2007
Location: England
Posted: 23rd Jul 2012 15:45
I dunno, I have to ask the question though. If you got shot in an attack like this, how much would you be charged for surgery and such to save your life?
Quik
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 23rd Jul 2012 15:51
depends on where you live, in US? I would guess a lot? (No actual clue, just guessing)



Whose eyes are those eyes?
Errant AI
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Aug 2006
Location:
Posted: 23rd Jul 2012 18:34 Edited at: 23rd Jul 2012 18:47
Quote: "Of course, because if he went in with a kitchen knife and a two-by-four, he would have killed and wounded exactly the same amount of people."


It's intellectually lazy to think of things in such terms.
The incident in the following link happened while I lived in Santa Monica, CA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Russell_Weller

It was ruled an accident but effectively the same tragic outcome and could be done in a premeditated manner by just about anyone in any country regardless of how strict their arms laws are.

Edit: What the article doesn't mention is that the vehicle came to a stop because of bodies wedged in the wheel-wells. Among the victims was a holocaust survivor and an infant. In the aftermath, there wasn't a discussion about the danger of cars or speculation about what he could have done if he had an SUV.
rolfy
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Jun 2006
Location:
Posted: 23rd Jul 2012 21:41 Edited at: 23rd Jul 2012 22:02
Quote: "We largely rely on trusting one another to not, well, be insane. So, yes, I think it would be better if more people carried guns in general."
Please tell me you didn't actually say that after what just happened.

Of course the guy is insane, goes without saying.

The AR-15 was banned in 1994, but restrictions were lifted 10 years later, as were prohibitions on the size of magazines....why?
If you like to shoot for sport then why cant these weapons be hired on site rather than 'bring your own'.

Quote: "The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence gives Colorado a score of just 15 points out of 100 in assessing adequate gun control laws. It criticises the state for not restricting bulk purchases of weapons, for failing to record identification of weapons so they can be traced, for failing to require any permits to buy a weapon and for permitting large magazines of the kind used."


A student needs such weapons and body armour surely you need to be asking the right questions, like "what do you intend to do with this sir....?"
Personally I believe its better to restrict access to weapons it certainly doesn't make sense when its so easy for someone like this to get them.
I know there are those who would argue that their own rights should be protected as they are perfectly sane and would even be a help in such a situation but I don't think any of us have the slightest clue what its like to caught up in such a situation and how we would react, any idiot can fire a gun on a range, its a different thing pointing it at a human being and pulling the trigger whatever the circumstances, if you believe you could have walked up to this guy and stopped him or took him out with a well aimed single shot then your living in fantasy land and it bears no relation to real events.

Of course your now getting all the theory's as to why this happened, Rush Limbaugh being one of my favorites at present, but I suspect that it will simply be the same as any other similar event that's occurred over the years, its a lunatic's statement to the world for the 'wrong's' perpetrated upon him... Oh! and the world fame and notoriety.

Early reports suggested he informed the police about the booby trapped apartment then wouldn't talk anymore, though he was happy to talk general chit chat he wouldn't talk about these events or why he did it, he's saving it up for trial I guess. He didn't intend to die he wore body Armour and handed himself over when the cops showed up, it all suggests he's about to play the media circus to the very end.

Awesome! Its one of those threads.
Quik
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 23rd Jul 2012 22:04
Quote: "its a different thing pointing it at a human being and pulling the trigger whatever the circumstances, if you believe you could have walked up to this guy and stopped him or took him out with a well aimed single shot then your living in fantasy land and it bears no relation to real events. "


Finally someone whogets that x)



Whose eyes are those eyes?
Libervurto
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Jun 2006
Location: On Toast
Posted: 23rd Jul 2012 22:25
Quote: "Knowing that this happens, you can be more active in your community to try and prevent the same thing from happening there. You can volunteer to help troubled teens so they don't turn into psychopaths, or get them the help they need if they are. You can educate people about the matter and why it's wrong if necessary. (e.g., they might be young children.)"

No I can't, I'm not a psychologist and I'm not going to start running around "diagnosing" people when I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Quote: "You can start a fund raiser or just donate so that the families can afford a funeral. All you have to do is get in contact with the locals. If you don't have the money to donate yourself, you can still setup a donation service for the families."

That's a better idea, but I don't live in the US so any money I raised would be subject to overseas transaction fees which are pretty extortionate.
To be honest I don't feel an inclination to do that anyway and although it sounds harsh this sort of thing happens every day in countries that are much poorer than the US.

Shh... you're pretty.
RedneckRambo
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2006
Location: Worst state in USA... California
Posted: 23rd Jul 2012 23:06
Anyone who tries to argue that he shouldn't be punished... It's just unfathomable to me. It's just plain ridiculous. Go look at his academic achievements. He was a freaking brilliant science student for God's sake. He knew what he was doing, plain and simple he's an inhumane freak. He's obviously crazy, there's no doubt... But he wasn't so mentally ill to the point he wasn't aware of what he was doing.

It's amazing to me that ANYONE can value the life of this "person." I don't care whether we kill him, lock him up forever, dig a three hundred foot hole in a ground and stick him in there, or even hang him from a tree.. Just punish him leaving him no outcome in life aside from his sufferings for this. I don't care which one.

That's all I'm going to say in this thread as I will just get it locked immediately. It's a horrible tragedy.

I>Every single one of you

Have a nice day
Quik
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 23rd Jul 2012 23:07
Quote: "Anyone who tries to argue that he shouldn't be punished"


Someone did argue that..?



Whose eyes are those eyes?
RedneckRambo
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2006
Location: Worst state in USA... California
Posted: 23rd Jul 2012 23:23
In this thread? I've no idea I haven't read through everything. But I've spoken to several people who say they believe he's mentally insane and that shouldn't be punished because so.

I>Every single one of you

Have a nice day
Quik
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 23rd Jul 2012 23:24
Quote: "they believe he's mentally insane and that shouldn't be punished because so."

If that were to be the case then he should get help with that.



Whose eyes are those eyes?
Errant AI
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Aug 2006
Location:
Posted: 24th Jul 2012 04:22 Edited at: 24th Jul 2012 04:27
Quote: "Please tell me you didn't actually say that after what just happened."


There's actually some logic behind that. Individuals who carry out these sort of attacks are generally cowards and choose targets of least resistance. This is why most of the worst mass shootings occur in "gun-free zones" like schools or social centers. This is why we never hear of a mass shootings at gun ranges (where everyone has guns).

Quote: "If even one out of 10 people carried a gun, then that nut case would not have gotten nearly as far as he did. Problem is, very few people actually carry guns."


He probably would have just stayed home if that was the case. The deterrent of 10% armed might have been enough. The truth though is that he was wearing quite a bit of bodyarmor and being the summer months, any CCW holders there would probably be carrying small caliber pistols which would have been pretty useless.

Quote: "The AR-15 was banned in 1994, but restrictions were lifted 10 years later, as were prohibitions on the size of magazines....why?"


The ban had a preset "sunset" date and it would have been political suicide to attempt to extend it. It was also primarily an accessory and name-brand ban. There were still plenty of AR style rifles being sold under different names and in AWB-compliant configurations. It was like banning Kleenex while still having another 50 brands of facial tissue readily available. There were already millions of pre-ban full-capacity magazines in circulation as well. People freak out about evil black military rifles but they aren't especially powerful and they aren't used in crime too much because they're usually too big to hide and too expensive to throw away.

Quote: "If you like to shoot for sport then why cant these weapons be hired on site rather than 'bring your own'."


Because The 2nd Amendment does not allow the public to be armed only for sporting. It was conceived as a hedge against tyranny and so that the public could resist a standing army. Yes, American revolutionaries did not have the sort of firepower found today but they did have better, more effective small arms than professional armies of that era.

Quote: "Personally I believe its better to restrict access to weapons it certainly doesn't make sense when its so easy for someone like this to get them."


If there is will, there is a way.

Personally I think society benefits much more from trying to understand and correct the factors which causes individuals to become so hopeless about their futures that they turn to these sorts of horrible acts.

Assigning responsibility for actions to an individual seems hard enough for some to grasp so I suppose it's a pipe dream to contemplate societal responsibility as well. It's much easier though to try and blame tools.

Think about how safer we would all be from identity theft and cyber-crime if only the government was allowed to have high-spec PCs and broadband!

What about all the millions of people we could save from obesity and heart disease if we could simply ban tableware?

Maybe scientists can isolate the genetic markers for alcoholism and those individuals could only be allowed to drive SmartCars... Wouldn't the countless lives saved from drunk driving incidents be worth it?

Eventually, maybe we can work our way towards euthanasia for anyone that doesn't fall within an established set of brain chemistry norms. Surely we'd all be safer then.

No thanks. I'd rather be free and with risk than safely caged.

As for punishment for this monster.... Anyone ever see the Korean film "Sympathy for Lady Vengeance"?
DeadTomGC
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Aug 2010
Location: LU
Posted: 25th Jul 2012 05:44 Edited at: 25th Jul 2012 05:48
Quote: "No thanks. I'd rather be free and with risk than safely caged."


Ya, same here. However! Experience shows us that you will probably actually be safer.


Aaron Miller
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Feb 2006
Playing: osu!
Posted: 25th Jul 2012 05:50 Edited at: 25th Jul 2012 05:51
Quote: "No thanks. I'd rather be free and with risk than safely caged."

Quote: "He who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither, and will lose both."


Cheers,
Aaron

Green Gandalf
VIP Member
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jan 2005
Playing: Malevolence:Sword of Ahkranox, Skyrim, Civ6.
Posted: 25th Jul 2012 17:07
Liberty to do what exactly?
ionstream
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2004
Location: Overweb
Posted: 25th Jul 2012 20:36
Quote: "He who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither, and will lose both."


I wonder if this line was used by Benjamin Franklin before or after the illegitimate son. People really need to stop quoting this as if its some sort of fact.

Quik
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 25th Jul 2012 21:34
It's a nice quote, however, wether you DESERVE it or not is entirely subjective, as there is no such thing as fact on that



Whose eyes are those eyes?
rolfy
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Jun 2006
Location:
Posted: 25th Jul 2012 21:37 Edited at: 25th Jul 2012 21:57
Nobody's talking about living in a cage.
When I quote the The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence its not a sweeping statement, its pointing out that existing gun law's are obviously not being observed.
....gives Colorado a score of just 15 points out of 100 in assessing adequate gun control laws

Of course I am a Brit and have no understanding of the gun culture mentality but I don't feel caged in any way without them and it may surprise you that we do have guns legally, its just not so common.To restrict weapons like those used may not stop this kind of person getting a hold of them, but in the end I believe it does limit the chances.

This sort of thing is not only peculiar to the States, in 1987 Michael Ryan, armed with two semi-automatic rifles and a handgun, shot and killed sixteen people including his mother, and wounded fifteen others, then fatally shot himself in Hungerford. He was in licensed possession of the weapons, he applied to cover two semi-automatic rifles, which was approved.

In 1996 Thomas Hamilton, entered a school in Dunblane armed with four handguns, shooting and killing sixteen children and one adult before committing suicide. He was licensed to own these.

In 2010 Derrick Bird, killed 12 people and injured 11 others before killing himself in Cumbria, England. He too was licensed.

Do we see a pattern here? I don't think they give a toss about being killed, in fact its very rare for these kind of psycho's to be taken alive and I reckon they will find a soft target regardless whether the population is armed.
Quote: "He probably would have just stayed home if that was the case. The deterrent of 10% armed might have been enough. The truth though is that he was wearing quite a bit of bodyarmor and being the summer months, any CCW holders there would probably be carrying small caliber pistols which would have been pretty useless."

In California 1997 Police were forced to raid a nearby gun store for more powerful weapons in order to compete with the amount of firepower they were up against as the body armor worn by the two perps was more than adequate against hand guns so that audience in Colorado being armed doesn't mean anything as you said, which really just compounds what I am trying to say, unless you believe gun laws are inadequate in the sense they don't allow you to carry assault rifles openly in public.


Quote: "Personally I think society benefits much more from trying to understand and correct the factors which causes individuals to become so hopeless about their futures that they turn to these sorts of horrible acts."

In most of these kind of cases the reasons die with the nutcase, any that do have a reason its usually something ridiculously insane and are always found to be schizophrenic.

I am not personally touting for gun removal completely, though to be honest I do swing more towards far tighter controls for assault weapons.

Quote: "
As for punishment for this monster.... Anyone ever see the Korean film "Sympathy for Lady Vengeance"? "

Yes I have seen Sympathy for Lady Vengeance, Old Boy is my personal favorite Korean movie.

Awesome! Its one of those threads.
fallen one
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Aug 2006
Location: My imagination!
Posted: 25th Jul 2012 21:49
Don't Americans have guns, why didn't someone else at the movie shoot back at him?


Daniel wright 2311
User Banned
Posted: 25th Jul 2012 22:01
Quote: "Don't Americans have guns, why didn't someone else at the movie shoot back at him?"


Most of us do have guns,but we dont have a license to carry them all around.This is why after the shooting there was thousands of people appling for that license.

my signature keeps being erased by a mod So this is my new signature.
rolfy
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Jun 2006
Location:
Posted: 25th Jul 2012 22:03 Edited at: 25th Jul 2012 22:04
It would have made no difference what the laws were, it was policy to not allow guns in the theater from my understanding.

Awesome! Its one of those threads.
Benjamin
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 25th Jul 2012 23:02
Quote: "This is why after the shooting there was thousands of people appling for that license."


I can understand that, an incident like this causes a lot of public paranoia.

But opening fire in a darkened room full of civilians would have been very dangerous, very possibly more so than not due to confusion over who the nutcase is.



Support a charitable indie game project!
Indicium
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th May 2008
Location:
Posted: 26th Jul 2012 00:12
Guns aren't to blame here. What's to stop a madman driving down the path of a busy street in a car?


They see me coding, they hating. http://indi-indicium.blogspot.co.uk/
Daniel wright 2311
User Banned
Posted: 26th Jul 2012 00:27
Quote: "What's to stop a madman driving down the path of a busy street in a car?"


This was not a car,this was a bunch of guns,guns are very dangeres and people just dont understand.With a gun,some one can murder many many people with out being stopped so fast,its not the fact that people kill people,every one in there right mind knows this,but what is not being said is how many people die from guns just in one shoot out.

Now,people can kill how they want,if they do so,its sad they even would want to,but,in the end of it all.if this guy was only carring a knife then mabey,mabey only one or two people would be dead,not 12 and 50 in criticle condition.

Guns are very dangres,they are not toys.

my signature keeps being erased by a mod So this is my new signature.
Indicium
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th May 2008
Location:
Posted: 26th Jul 2012 01:02
Cars are dangerous and not toys, they could easily plough into a densely packed area and injure a lot of people.


They see me coding, they hating. http://indi-indicium.blogspot.co.uk/
Quik
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 26th Jul 2012 01:10
Quote: "This was not a car,this was a bunch of guns,guns are very dangeres and people just dont understand."


So are cars.. I fail to see your point?



Whose eyes are those eyes?
Diggsey
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Apr 2006
Location: On this web page.
Posted: 26th Jul 2012 01:29
Quote: "So are cars.. I fail to see your point?"


I'd like to see you drive a car into a cinema... But seriously, have you ever heard of anyone going on a killing spree using only a car? People would generally attempt to get out of the way - not so easy to do against an automatic weapon!

[b]
Quik
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 26th Jul 2012 01:34
of course it's easier to go to a cinema and shoot people, however what I am saying that it's quite possible to just run the car into a group of people, even into another car depending on how much you care about your own life.
Either way, it wouldnt be AS bad, but certanly 3-5 peoples death are quite severe.



Whose eyes are those eyes?
Doomster
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Nov 2007
Location: Germany
Posted: 26th Jul 2012 01:37 Edited at: 26th Jul 2012 01:39
Quote: "have you ever heard of anyone going on a killing spree using only a car"

Well, there was the massacre in Akihabara, where a man killed and injured people using a truck, before attacking several other people with a knife afterwards.

However, I can't think of any incidents where only a car was used off the top of my head, tho'.

Benjamin
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 26th Jul 2012 01:58
Quote: "What's to stop a madman driving down the path of a busy street in a car?"


Oh, so you're saying we should ban most of the most useful everyday items because there's a small risk of someone using them to harm someone?



Support a charitable indie game project!

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2025-05-22 02:19:29
Your offset time is: 2025-05-22 02:19:29