America has another random shooting in Aurora, CO...

[gloomyDAY]

...and I'm wondering who's going to get blamed in this sensationalized story. Marilyn Manson? No, he was the scapegoat for Columbine. Video games? No, Anders used that excuse since he trained so diligently on Call of Duty. The NRA? No, they make weapons accessible only to responsible Americans. Obama? No, he's already taking blame for the traffic I hit the other day while trying to get to work. How about James Holmes? No, we'll be too busy pointing the finger at others instead of putting the responsibility on him.

I'm pretty fed up with the media at the moment. They're propagating more of this crap by making it a cover story and making this punk seem like an admiring symbol to many impressionable kids. The media, whether it be the dribble on CNN or diatribe at FOX, is only making matters worse. The finger pointing has begun and the politicians who are anxious of taking advantage of a terrible situation are ready on the sidelines like my pit bull eager for a treat. I think the person/s to blame for this occurring behavior is YOU​, America.

[Rollo]

...and I'm wondering who's going to get blamed in this sensationalized story.

Worse - Batman. Seriously. "the suspect had dyed his hair red and had told police he was the Joker, Batman's infamous nemesis"

BBC News - Batman cinema shooting: US mourning Aurora victims (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18935153)
James Holmes, 24, was arrested outside the cinema near Denver, police said.
He was said to be armed with a rifle, a shotgun and two pistols. All were bought legally within the last few months, US media reported.

So then, Mr Holmes was within his Second Amendment rights to be armed to the teeth. I suppose that this is the acceptable price of so-called "freedom" then.

[TyPat107]

I live in Wyoming where we no longer have to have a concealed weapons permit so we are pretty much like the wild west. I know someone is going to say "should have been someone in the crowd with a gun to stop the guy**."

I swear that's the answer for everything. Obama elected? Buy more guns. Guy get face eaten in Florida buy more guns... Global warming? It's a lie but buy more guns!...

[gloomyDAY]

It wasn't a random shooting. Seems the shooter was very specific where and when he did it.Good point! Could it be that Holmes is mentally unstable? Yes, I believe so. The United States habitually treats people with mental dysfunctions like a leper colony and ostracizes them from society. Kelly Thomas (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=yn8CE5ISUSw&NR=1) was brutally murdered by police for merely being homeless and schizophrenic. Those cops didn't even lose their jobs and were placed on paid leave (vacation) while being investigated! A vast majority of people in prison are mentally unstable, but are not treated for their conditions, and are rather thrown into the Prison-industrial complex. My point is that we're failing as a society to help people. America's sadistic obsession with punishment is sweeping our problems under the rug.

[janvanvurpa]

Blame Canada.

You're either for Freedom™, or with the terr'ists.

And
Corporations are people too.

[janvanvurpa]

I live in Wyoming where we no longer have to have a concealed weapons permit so we are pretty much like the wild west. I know someone is going to say "should have been someone in the crowd with a gun to stop the guy**."

I swear that's the answer for everything. Obama elected? Buy more guns. Guy get face eaten in Florida buy more guns... Global warming? It's a lie but buy more guns!...

Yeah, the genius answer to everything wrong in 'Merikuh

Elsewhere I already heard "If there had been a few people armed blah blah"
Fortunately other forum members with normal functioning brains pointed out to the broken tape records "Great idea, dark movie theatre, smoke bomb and tear gas filling the place, people leaping and running in terror, and you suggest one or more armed idiot start blazing away".. Geniuses.

Forget the empathy for the dead and the families though, abstract theories are at stake here.

[anthonyvop]

Well just like during the Gifford's shooting the media was quick to blame the right and the tea party.

And just like then they are 100% wrong.

The Usual Suspects: ABC's Ross, Stephanopoulos Point to Tea Party in Dark Knight Shooting UPDATE: ABC Corrects, Apologizes--After Blaming 'Social Media' and the Public (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/07/20/It-Begins-ABC-Ross-Stephanolpoulos-Point-to-Tea-Party-for-Dark-Knight-Shooting)

Of course their "retraction" was in the form of a press release and not a Public act of contrition by the perps.

[Dave B]

I've already heard one moronic comment on British news along the lines of "it's time to reopen the debate about these sorts of violent films". No, it really isn't. The shooter clearly has major psychological problems which can't be explained by watching a man in a rubber batsuit.

I've long since given up wondering whether the latest killing spree will be the one which tips the USA over the edge to actually consider changing their gun laws, as the Dunblane massacre did in the UK in the 90's. Guns are so ingrained in the culture that incidents like these seems to be brushed aside and life goes on - for most people - and clearly no Presidential candidate is going to risk upsetting the gun loons this close to an election.

A very sad situation.

[BDunnell]

And lets not forget that there are people that the experts deem to be perfectly sane, yet fundamentally warped. They know exactly what they are doing and do it anyway. These are just bad people and IMO the severest punishment commensurate to the crime should be applied.

'Just bad people' — the comments of someone with, if I may say so, an overly simplistic outlook. Your dismissal of 'expert' opinion is also, shall we say, interesting. I would rather trust the opinion of an expert in such a field than I would, for example, those of an armchair pundit such as yourself, but perhaps that's just me being old-fashioned.

[BDunnell]

Well just like during the Gifford's shooting the media was quick to blame the right and the tea party.

I agree with your sentiments here, but the sad fact that politics always gets brought into such cases is typified by other comments I've seen on this case, stating that the killer was a 'card-carrying Democrat'. Whatever, it's spectacularly irrelevant, or perhaps would be in any other country.

[Alfa Fan]

My sympathy is limited when America refuses to tighten up gun controls. I just hope eventually one of these incidents forces them to wake up and realise the need for restrictions on their availability. A lunatic on the rampage with a knife is a hell of a lot less dangerous.

[Robinho]

from what I've read, which I admit is limited, he was a (dropout?) PhD student with no previous history (apart from a speeding ticket) who bought the several weapons and ammo legally, yet a day later they still can't get into his booby trapped flat for fear of setting off mortars.

IMO that in itself raises seom serious questions about gun control. I often hear in these sorts of events, that the shooter had stolen the wepaons, or taken from a relative or some other appropriation of the weapons and therefore gun control works as they did not have legal access to the weapons. Yet here we are with an assumedly intelligent young man building an arsenal, legally.

All quite worrying, if true. I fear there is obviously some underlying psychological problem, with a difficulty in separating fiction from real life, but to me thats no worse than your average extremist/fundamentalist - its just as likely that Batman was on his side as God is on theirs IMO

[BDunnell]

from what I've read, which I admit is limited, he was a (dropout?) PhD student with no previous history (apart from a speeding ticket) who bought the several weapons and ammo legally, yet a day later they still can't get into his booby trapped flat for fear of setting off mortars.

IMO that in itself raises seom serious questions about gun control. I often hear in these sorts of events, that the shooter had stolen the wepaons, or taken from a relative or some other appropriation of the weapons and therefore gun control works as they did not have legal access to the weapons. Yet here we are with an assumedly intelligent young man building an arsenal, legally.

All quite worrying, if true. I fear there is obviously some underlying psychological problem, with a difficulty in separating fiction from real life, but to me thats no worse than your average extremist/fundamentalist - its just as likely that Batman was on his side as God is on theirs IMO

It all goes to prove, surely, that arguments about the necessary checks and balances on would-be firearm purchasers simply having failed in this case are decidedly specious. What, exactly, is the process in the USA?

[Malbec]

Whatever, it's spectacularly irrelevant, or perhaps would be in any other country.

I'm not sure about that. Hours after it was clear that the shootings last year in Norway were perpetrated by a white supremacist some news services were still sticking to the Al-Qaeda line.

Kneejerk reactions against whatever political affiliation a particular news channel or agency doesn't like are by no means limited to the US.

[Dave B]

What kind of vetting process lets one individual purchase an alleged 6,000 rounds of ammunition without setting off alarm bells?


Dan Oates, the chief of police in Aurora, Colorado, where Holmes killed 12 people and injured 58 others, said: ’He purchased four guns at local gun shops and through the internet he purchased over 6,000 rounds of ammunition, more than 3,000 rounds of 0.223 ammunition for the assault rifle, 3,000 rounds of 0.40 caliber ammunition for the two Glocks in his possession, and 300 rounds for the 12 gauge shotgun.
“Also through the internet he purchased multiple magazines for the 0.223 caliber assault rifle including one 100-round drum magazine which was recovered from the scene.



Source: Batman shooter bought 6,000 rounds of ammunition before Denver massacre - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9416870/Batman-shooter-bought-6000-rounds-of-ammunition-before-Denver-massacre.html)

Whatever checks and balances are supposed to be in place, they failed spectacularly. No one person needs that amount of weaponry, no matter what some outdated crazy law says they're constitutionally entitled to.

[Malbec]

Whatever checks and balances are supposed to be in place, they failed spectacularly. No one person needs that amount of weaponry, no matter what some outdated crazy law says they're constitutionally entitled to.

You would have thought that some anti-terror agencies would have a system to catch massive purchases like this and send someone to take a look around. After all if a non-farmer suddenly bought hundreds of kilos of fertiliser I bet that would trigger some alarm bells, in fact some plots in the UK have been caught exactly in this way.

[Robinho]

What kind of vetting process lets one individual purchase an alleged 6,000 rounds of ammunition without setting off alarm bells?




Source: Batman shooter bought 6,000 rounds of ammunition before Denver massacre - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9416870/Batman-shooter-bought-6000-rounds-of-ammunition-before-Denver-massacre.html)

Whatever checks and balances are supposed to be in place, they failed spectacularly. No one person needs that amount of weaponry, no matter what some outdated crazy law says they're constitutionally entitled to.

Yeah, but what if the queen DOES invade?

Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk 2

[BDunnell]

You have done your usual job of completely mis quoting what I said. Read it again, slowly for comprehension, then you may apologize for claiming I said things which I did not.

No, I won't.

'...lets [sic] not forget that there are people that the experts deem to be perfectly sane, yet fundamentally warped'. I would suggest that to be quite a dismissal of 'expert' opinion, unless you yourself are a clinical psychologist. And your statement that 'These are just bad people' is open to no misinterpretation. You believe it possible to categorise people as 'bad' or 'good'; I believe this to be unduly simplistic. No need for me to apologise to you for anything, I think.

[BDunnell]

I'm not sure about that. Hours after it was clear that the shootings last year in Norway were perpetrated by a white supremacist some news services were still sticking to the Al-Qaeda line.

Kneejerk reactions against whatever political affiliation a particular news channel or agency doesn't like are by no means limited to the US.

You are right. I had rather forgotten about the Norway killings.

[BDunnell]

It varies from state to state. But, generally, you must fill out an application and then there is a waiting period while a background check is performed. Certain things, again depending on the state, would disqualify you from such a purchase - being a convicted felon; history of mental issues, etc. In most places you can't just walk in and go away with a hand gun. The rules for rifles and shotguns are slightly different, again depending on state.

Well, then, what went wrong in this case?

[BDunnell]

I don't know enough about the Colorado laws or the specifics of what went wrong in this case to comment. Perhaps when more information is available I'll form an opinion.

Without stopping to think about whether the underlying principle is at fault, I'll bet.

[BDunnell]

My entire statement:
What part of "...that the experts deem to be perfectly sane, yet fundamentally warped." do you think was not referring to "the experts"? How was that a dismissal of expert opinion? And there is some subset, in the minority, of criminals who are just bad people. They are sane by any current definition, yet have no morals or remorse about their actions. Nowhere did I suggest that those types of people comprise any significant percentage of criminals. There are lots of reasons people do bad things, that's just one of them.

This is an somewhat confused argument you're putting forward, I must say. And again you repeat this mantra that there is such a thing as someone who is 'just bad', as though there are no factors involved other than their being a 'bad' person. Like I said, it's simplistic.



I also think that, because your views on most things differ greatly from mine, you tend to assume things about my meanings that are not in fact what was expressed. I suggest you read what was written and not what you think I meant. If you're unsure about anything, then just ask and I'll try and clarify.

I do know how to read. It's your comments that I think are muddled. But let's not go on about this too much longer.

[gloomyDAY]

It is sad to think that the first few people on earth needed no books, movies, games or music to inspire cold-blooded murder. The day that Cain bashed his brother Abel's brains in, the only motivation he needed was his own human disposition to violence. Whether you interpret the Bible as literature or as the final word of whatever God may be, Christianity has given us an image of death and sexuality that we have based our culture around. A half-naked dead man hangs in most homes and around our necks, and we have just taken that for granted all our lives. Is it a symbol of hope or hopelessness? The world's most famous murder-suicide was also the birth of the death icon -- the blueprint for celebrity. Unfortunately, for all of their inspiring morality, nowhere in the Gospels is intelligence praised as a virtue.
A lot of people forget or never realize that I started my band as a criticism of these very issues of despair and hypocrisy. The name Marilyn Manson has never celebrated the sad fact that America puts killers on the cover of Time magazine, giving them as much notoriety as our favorite movie stars. From Jesse James to Charles Manson, the media, since their inception, have turned criminals into folk heroes. They just created two new ones when they plastered those dip****s Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris' pictures on the front of every newspaper. Don't be surprised if every kid who gets pushed around has two new idols.

We applaud the creation of a bomb whose sole purpose is to destroy all of mankind, and we grow up watching our president's brains splattered all over Texas. Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised. Does anyone think the Civil War was the least bit civil? If television had existed, you could be sure they would have been there to cover it, or maybe even participate in it, like their violent car chase of Princess Di. Disgusting vultures looking for corpses, exploiting, ****ing, filming and serving it up for our hungry appetites in a gluttonous display of endless human stupidity.

When it comes down to who's to blame for the high school murders in Littleton, Colorado, throw a rock and you'll hit someone who's guilty. We're the people who sit back and tolerate children owning guns, and we're the ones who tune in and watch the up-to-the-minute details of what they do with them. I think it's terrible when anyone dies, especially if it is someone you know and love. But what is more offensive is that when these tragedies happen, most people don't really care any more than they would about the season finale of Friends or The Real World. I was dumbfounded as I watched the media snake right in, not missing a teardrop, interviewing the parents of dead children, televising the funerals. Then came the witch hunt.

Man's greatest fear is chaos. It was unthinkable that these kids did not have a simple black-and-white reason for their actions. And so a scapegoat was needed. I remember hearing the initial reports from Littleton, that Harris and Klebold were wearing makeup and were dressed like Marilyn Manson, whom they obviously must worship, since they were dressed in black. Of course, speculation snowballed into making me the poster boy for everything that is bad in the world. These two idiots weren't wearing makeup, and they weren't dressed like me or like goths. Since Middle America has not heard of the music they did listen to (KMFDM and Rammstein, among others), the media picked something they thought was similar.

Responsible journalists have reported with less publicity that Harris and Klebold were not Marilyn Manson fans -- that they even disliked my music. Even if they were fans, that gives them no excuse, nor does it mean that music is to blame. Did we look for James Huberty's inspiration when he gunned down people at McDonald's? What did Timothy McVeigh like to watch? What about David Koresh, Jim Jones? Do you think entertainment inspired Kip Kinkel, or should we blame the fact that his father bought him the guns he used in the Springfield, Oregon, murders? What inspires Bill Clinton to blow people up in Kosovo? Was it something that Monica Lewinsky said to him? Isn't killing just killing, regardless if it's in Vietnam or Jonesboro, Arkansas? Why do we justify one, just because it seems to be for the right reasons? Should there ever be a right reason? If a kid is old enough to drive a car or buy a gun, isn't he old enough to be held personally responsible for what he does with his car or gun? Or if he's a teenager, should someone else be blamed because he isn't as enlightened as an eighteen-year-old?

America loves to find an icon to hang its guilt on. But, admittedly, I have assumed the role of Antichrist; I am the Nineties voice of individuality, and people tend to associate anyone who looks and behaves differently with illegal or immoral activity. Deep down, most adults hate people who go against the grain. It's comical that people are naive enough to have forgotten Elvis, Jim Morrison and Ozzy so quickly. All of them were subjected to the same age-old arguments, scrutiny and prejudice. I wrote a song called "Lunchbox," and some journalists have interpreted it as a song about guns. Ironically, the song is about being picked on and fighting back with my Kiss lunch box, which I used as a weapon on the playground. In 1979, metal lunch boxes were banned because they were considered dangerous weapons in the hands of delinquents. I also wrote a song called "Get Your Gunn." The title is spelled with two n's because the song was a reaction to the murder of Dr. David Gunn, who was killed in Florida by pro-life activists while I was living there. That was the ultimate hypocrisy I witnessed growing up: that these people killed someone in the name of being "pro-life."

The somewhat positive messages of these songs are usually the ones that sensationalists misinterpret as promoting the very things I am decrying. Right now, everyone is thinking of how they can prevent things like Littleton. How do you prevent AIDS, world war, depression, car crashes? We live in a free country, but with that freedom there is a burden of personal responsibility. Rather than teaching a child what is moral and immoral, right and wrong, we first and foremost can establish what the laws that govern us are. You can always escape hell by not believing in it, but you cannot escape death and you cannot escape prison.

It is no wonder that kids are growing up more cynical; they have a lot of information in front of them. They can see that they are living in a world that's made of bull****. In the past, there was always the idea that you could turn and run and start something better. But now America has become one big mall, and because of the Internet and all of the technology we have, there's nowhere to run. People are the same everywhere. Sometimes music, movies and books are the only things that let us feel like someone else feels like we do. I've always tried to let people know it's OK, or better, if you don't fit into the program. Use your imagination -- if some geek from Ohio can become something, why can't anyone else with the willpower and creativity?

I chose not to jump into the media frenzy and defend myself, though I was begged to be on every single TV show in existence. I didn't want to contribute to these fame-seeking journalists and opportunists looking to fill their churches or to get elected because of their self-righteous finger-pointing. They want to blame entertainment? Isn't religion the first real entertainment? People dress up in costumes, sing songs and dedicate themselves in eternal fandom. Everyone will agree that nothing was more entertaining than Clinton shooting off his prick and then his bombs in true political form. And the news -- that's obvious. So is entertainment to blame? I'd like media commentators to ask themselves, because their coverage of the event was some of the most gruesome entertainment any of us have seen.

I think that the National Rifle Association is far too powerful to take on, so most people choose Doom, The Basketball Diaries or yours truly. This kind of controversy does not help me sell records or tickets, and I wouldn't want it to. I'm a controversial artist, one who dares to have an opinion and bothers to create music and videos that challenge people's ideas in a world that is watered-down and hollow. In my work I examine the America we live in, and I've always tried to show people that the devil we blame our atrocities on is really just each one of us. So don't expect the end of the world to come one day out of the blue -- it's been happening every day for a long time.

MARILYN MANSON
(May 28, 1999)

Posted May 28, 1999 12:00 AMThe Columbine school shooting happened over a decade ago, and Marilyn Manson's statement is still relevant today as it was back in 1999.

[donKey jote]

I'm not sure about that. Hours after it was clear that the shootings last year in Norway were perpetrated by a white supremacist some news services were still sticking to the Al-Qaeda line.

Kneejerk reactions against whatever political affiliation a particular news channel or agency doesn't like are by no means limited to the US.

just like hours after it was clear who performed the Madrid bombings, Aznar's Government was still sticking to the ETA line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_2004_Madrid_train_bombings #Accuracy_of_government_statements). :dozey:
Even now, almost a decade later, some media still stick with the conspiracy theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_2004_Madrid_train_bombings #Controversy_regarding_responsibility) :crazy:

[BDunnell]

Reading accounts of the suspect's life and manner, while it is impossible to draw any hard and fast conclusions, it does strike me that nothing in his apparent behaviour or personality ought to have attracted undue suspicion, with one enormous exception — his sudden purchasing of firearms and ammunition.

[anthonyvop]

Reading accounts of the suspect's life and manner, while it is impossible to draw any hard and fast conclusions, it does strike me that nothing in his apparent behaviour or personality ought to have attracted undue suspicion, with one enormous exception — his sudden purchasing of firearms and ammunition.

As much as it might cause you to shake in fear the purchase of a few weapons and some ammo is NOT A SUSPICIOUS ACT!!!

[BDunnell]

As much as it might cause you to shake in fear the purchase of a few weapons and some ammo is NOT A SUSPICIOUS ACT!!!

So you would rather that these killings occurred than extra checks and balances be instituted?

[anthonyvop]

So you would rather that these killings occurred than extra checks and balances be instituted?

Yep.

The cost of freedom is not cheap.
I don't call for the restriction of cars even though they have been used to kill. I didn't call for a ban on air travel after 9/11(I am also against the ridiculous Politically correct "security" checks

BTW I am looking to see if it is true that the theater had signs stating that no weapons are allowed (Colorado is a Concealed Carry State)

[BDunnell]

Yep.

The cost of freedom is not cheap.
I don't call for the restriction of cars even though they have been used to kill. I didn't call for a ban on air travel after 9/11(I am also against the ridiculous Politically correct "security" checks

BTW I am looking to see if it is true that the theater had signs stating that no weapons are allowed (Colorado is a Concealed Carry State)

OK, fine. Comments like yours in the golf thread make me think you are far from a fit individual to own even basic kitchen equipment, let alone a firearm, but if you must, so be it.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Yep.

The cost of freedom is not cheap.
I don't call for the restriction of cars even though they have been used to kill. I didn't call for a ban on air travel after 9/11(I am also against the ridiculous Politically correct "security" checks

BTW I am looking to see if it is true that the theater had signs stating that no weapons are allowed (Colorado is a Concealed Carry State)

If 'freedom' means that I will get shot if I go to the movies then I think I'll stay in my totalitarian-communist-socialist healthcare loving-marxist worshipping hell hole of a country as a subject of Queeny Elizabeth II.

At least you have your gun to protect yourself from Lizzy, I can only dream of such freedom!

[Rollo]

Yep.

The cost of freedom is not cheap.
I don't call for the restriction of cars even though they have been used to kill. I didn't call for a ban on air travel after 9/11(I am also against the ridiculous Politically correct "security" checks

The use of Motor Cars is governed by proper and appropriate regulations and laws. Airline Travel, the standards which define all sorts of things from where an aircraft is to be flown, to how they are built etc. are also governed by proper and appropriate regulations and laws.

The Bill of Rights Act 1689 upon which the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution was probably inspired, contained the provision:
That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

That isn't to say that British people already couldn't have arms, but that there should be proper and appropriate regulations and laws to govern them. Clearly the laws which govern arms in the United States are improper and inappropriate because the repeated use of them by the citizenry frequently violates "domestic Tranquility,", "general Welfare" and "the Blessings of Liberty".
So called freedom is a worthless concept to the people who have died and those who will continue to do so.

[BDunnell]

So called freedom is a worthless concept to the people who have died and those who will continue to do so.

Oh no — according to anthonyvop's reasoning the relatives of the deceased should be greatful that their deaths came at the hands of someone taking advantage of his liberties, shouldn't they, anthonyvop?

[Robinho]

the "cost of freedom"? Having your freedom extinguished while going to the movies - that sounds like real freedom :rolleyes:

This notion that the definition of freedom equates to the ownership of guns is about as retarded as I have ever had the misfortune to encounter

[janvanvurpa]

It wasn't a random shooting. Seems the shooter was very specific where and when he did it.

Well then, that makes it all better doesn't it? :crazy:

(That seems to be your message. Might think about what your words have for implications ie what your words imply...) :idea:

[Robinho]

There were a number of very educated men, living in what is now the US, in the late 1700's, who thought different.

There are a large group of people currently living in Libya and Syria, as well as a few other countries, who thank their god that they have access to guns. They would consider your position to be foolishness incarnate.

That does not make it appropriate for the developed, democratic and supposedly safe USA in 2012 though. What was appropriate in USA in 1700 and what is fueling the confidence of rebels or whatever we are calling them in the middle east is not necessarily the right thing for Colorado is it. To jusify current legislation on what was right in the 1700's is myopic at best

[anthonyvop]

The use of Motor Cars is governed by proper and appropriate regulations and laws. Airline Travel, the standards which define all sorts of things from where an aircraft is to be flown, to how they are built etc. are also governed by proper and appropriate regulations and laws.

You are under the assumption that criminals will follow the wall. No law will stop a person from diverting from a flight path or break a traffic law in order to commit the crime.


So called freedom is a worthless concept to the people who have died and those who will continue to do so.

Freedom is a worthless concept?

[anthonyvop]

Oh no — according to anthonyvop's reasoning the relatives of the deceased should be greatful that their deaths came at the hands of someone taking advantage of his liberties, shouldn't they, anthonyvop?

I never said that.
What you are doing is the same old tired trick used by the left when losing the debate. If you had any honor you would admit your falsehood and offer a sincere apology!

[anthonyvop]

the "cost of freedom"? Having your freedom extinguished while going to the movies - that sounds like real freedom :rolleyes:

This notion that the definition of freedom equates to the ownership of guns is about as retarded as I have ever had the misfortune to encounter


The other trick of the left when face with overwhelming logic is to through out personal insults.

[Hawkmoon]

The other trick of the left when face with overwhelming logic is to through out personal insults.

Your argument isn't logical. Do you honestly believe that the only reason the United States is a free and stable democracy is because the citizenry are able to own guns? If that's the case, how is it that the weaponless citizens of Australia and the UK also live in free and stable democracies?

[anthonyvop]

Your argument isn't logical. Do you honestly believe that the only reason the United States is a free and stable democracy is because the citizenry are able to own guns? If that's the case, how is it that the weaponless citizens of Australia and the UK also live in free and stable democracies?


I refer you to trick #1

I never said "Only" so an apology should be forthcoming.

The UK is no way near a free society compared with the USA. The UK does not have the guaranteed right of freedom of speech for example. Also their legislative branch is made up in part by members who are not elected by the citizenry so the its claim of democracy is dubious at best.

Australia does not guarantee the freedom of speech with the exception of political speech which is protected from criminal prosecution.

[Hawkmoon]

I refer you to trick #1

I never said "Only" so an apology should be forthcoming.

The UK is no way near a free society compared with the USA. The UK does not have the guaranteed right of freedom of speech for example. Also their legislative branch is made up in part by members who are not elected by the citizenry so the its claim of democracy is dubious at best.

Australia does not guarantee the freedom of speech with the exception of political speech which is protected from criminal prosecution.

I vote right of centre more often than not so I'm not using some "left wing trick".

Stop requesting apologies from everybody who responds to you. It's stupid.

I attest that, in 2012, America's freedom has nothing to with the right to own guns and everything to do with rule of law. It's your votes that keep you free, not your guns. Take away the guns and you will still be able to do and say everything you do now (with the exception of shoot each other). Take away your vote and your freedom dies. And before you say it, no, your guns don't protect your votes. The law does.

At the risk of getting off topic, the Westminster system is every bit as democratic as the US system. The American people don't directly elect the president. You elect people who then elect the president.

[airshifter]

Just my view, but when you get someone this twisted they are going to find a way to cause death and destruction. Without guns they would resort to pipe bombs or chemical explosions.

Rather than join the press in the senseless speculation of what may or may not have been the cause, I'll simply say that any time life is taken away for no apparent reason, it's a problem society should try to address.

[anthonyvop]

I vote right of centre more often than not so I'm not using some "left wing trick".

Just because you claim to vote "right of Center" doesn't mean the trick is typical of the left wing.


I attest that, in 2012, America's freedom has nothing to with the right to own guns and everything to do with rule of law. It's your votes that keep you free, not your guns. Take away the guns and you will still be able to do and say everything you do now (with the exception of shoot each other).

Really? Law is not enforced by force? Police are not needed in a democracy? A tyrannical government can be changed to a democracy with good intentions and catchy slogans?


Take away your vote and your freedom dies. And before you say it, no, your guns don't protect your votes. The law does.

A Government's role in following its people's will is directly proportionate to its fear of its very same people.


At the risk of getting off topic, the Westminster system is every bit as democratic as the US system. The American people don't directly elect the president. You elect people who then elect the president.

And exactly how are the House of Lords elected? Is anyone allowed to run for the house of commons in spite of their views?

[Granatelli]

Democracy has nothing to do with freedom of a society. there are plenty of opressive countries that are democracies. the right to bear arms has alot to do with the citizenry being able to protect themselves from their own government. plenty of eastern Europeans would have been well served being armed while under the Soviet boot in that post WWII hell hole.

[anthonyvop]

So much for notion that Gun Control laws would have prevented the attack


Aurora

1. "Dangerous weapon" includes firearm

2. Revocation of license for furnishing a firearm to a minor or someone under the influence.

3. Window displays cannot include firearms with barrels less than 12 inches long.

4. Unlawful to carry concealed "dangerous weapon"

5. Unlawful to discharge firearms, unless by law enforcement on duty or on shooting range.

6. Unlawful to possess firearm while under the influence of intoxicant

7. Unlawful to have loaded firearm in motor vehicle.

8. Unlawful for a juvenile to possess a firearm.

Firearms Regulations in the 20 Largest Colorado Municipalities (http://www.coloradoceasefire.org/munilaws.htm)

Well we have 3 local gun restriction laws violated and numerous federal and state ones as well and yet............

[gloomyDAY]

So you would rather that these killings occurred than extra checks and balances be instituted?


Yep.

The cost of freedom is not cheap. Two things: 1) You're despicable, Tony. You'd rather see more people get killed than have proper restrictions on your precious weapons. 2) Thanks for the laugh! "Freedom is not cheap." I haven't seen that type of crap since Bush left office. Remember Bush? You know, the guy who put America into a quagmire over in the desert and then bankrupted the country at the same time? Bush is probably holding hands with his NRA buddies and saying a prayer. Isn't that ironic.



The other trick of the left when face with overwhelming logic is to through out personal insults.You're ridiculous! Are you an adult or a kid on the playground? Tony's using the "you're on the left" argument to duck out of a corner (surprise, surprise) :rolleyes: . Are you trying to call people who are not agreeing with you a bunch of "pussies"? If that's what you want to say, then come out and say it, coward. That's my new nickname for you. Tony "The Coward" Vop. I'd like to see you go up to the parents who lost their kids in the theater and tell them that their deaths were okay as long as you still get to buy your arsenal of assault rifles.

[Rollo]

Australia does not guarantee the freedom of speech with the exception of political speech which is protected from criminal prosecution.

Australia does not need to guarantee any freedoms because they're already assumed to exist at Common Law.

"A bill of rights would diminish parliament's authority by transferring decision-making authority to unelected judges, accountable to nobody in the barest theoretical sense.
I've always held the classical view that the public elects members of parliament, who pass laws hopefully in the public interest and those laws are in turn interpreted and enforced by courts.
If adopted, a bill of rights would politicise the appointment of judges, increase the volume of litigation and would not in any way increase the rights and protections now available to Australian citizens"
- John Howard, 27th Aug 2009

"In Australia it is necessary to remember, when discussing civil liberties and rights, that one of the functions of common law has been to protect the individual against infringement of his or her personal rights"
- Sir Robert Menzies, 17th Jul 1971

Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1992) 177 CLR 106, which is as close as any Common Law case has ever gotten, didn't touch on the subject of free speech because it didn't implicitly need to:
Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd and New South Wales v Commonwealth [1992] HCA 45; (1992) 177 CLR 106 (30 September 1992) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/177clr106.html)
"The question is not whether the legislation ought be regarded as desirable or undesirable in the interests of free speech or even of representative democracy."

At any rate, it's never even once been questioned that it doesn't exist, so in that respect your viewpoint is entirely faulty.

[Rollo]

Freedom is a worthless concept?

It is if you're dead.

[Robinho]

The other trick of the left when face with overwhelming logic is to through out personal insults.

spot the insult - I said the notion was retarded, the notion I had developed from your words that guns = freedom (except for those killed). Your trick, as always is to start shouting about lefties and liberals (regardless of fact or potential insult) whilst steadfastly ignoring the words. anything to try to discredit the poster rather than addressing something.

Please try to display some of this overwhelming logic, actually explain your point and maybe have a go at a tiny bit of empathy, even if only for your fellow American who live in your gloriously free nation, but who thankfully not exactly the same as you.

Is it not a teeny bit logical that tighter gun control could have prevented this event (and other similar ones). if it is possible, please then describe, in detail, how your personal "freedom" would be eroded and how your life would be dramatically worse - not by jumping through a sequence of unlikely legislative events stemming from gun control, but just from 1 change outlawing the sale of guns to the general public and making carrying guns an offence



Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk 2

[Robinho]

Tony, do you honestly believe that if Americans were unable to "bear arms", the democratic system would break down and you'd all be living in a police state or dictatorship?

as for your list of laws broken as an excuse for gun control not being able to stop this event, surely if this individual could not have legally bought 4 deadly weapons and enough ammo to kill hundreds, then there is a significant reduction in the risk of the event happening?

Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk 2

[Robinho]

It is if you're dead.

IMO the freedom to go about your day without the risk of being shot by a legally owned weapon for no reason is far more important than the freedom to own a gun

Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk 2

[Dave B]

Yep.

The cost of freedom is not cheap.


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02284/Veronica-Moser-Sul_2284154b.jpg

The girl in that photo is Veronica Moser-Sullivan. She died in the shootings, and her mother is critically ill in hospital. She was six years old.

Never mind, at least nobody's trying to harm your precious rights....

FFS.

[BDunnell]

The other trick of the left when face with overwhelming logic is to through out personal insults.

What are there in the way of non-insulting remarks to make to you, Tony, that aren't true? I have said before that I honestly believe a psychologist would have a field day with your statements, and those made — not just on this thread — in the last day bear this out.

[Alfa Fan]

I'm fairly sure anthonyvop is just a 14-year-old keyboard warrior. At this point I think the best thing to do would be just to ignore him.

[Lousada]

The girl in that photo is Veronica Moser-Sullivan. She died in the shootings, and her mother is critically ill in hospital. She was six years old.

Never mind, at least nobody's trying to harm your precious rights....

FFS.

Why was a six year old at a batman movie premiere in the middle of the night??

[anthonyvop]

It is if you're dead.


So by your logic the people of North Korea are better off than those in the USA.

Sad that people think that way.

[anthonyvop]

Australia does not need to guarantee any freedoms because they're already assumed to exist at Common Law.

"A bill of rights would diminish parliament's authority by transferring decision-making authority to unelected judges, accountable to nobody in the barest theoretical sense.
I've always held the classical view that the public elects members of parliament, who pass laws hopefully in the public interest and those laws are in turn interpreted and enforced by courts.
If adopted, a bill of rights would politicise the appointment of judges, increase the volume of litigation and would not in any way increase the rights and protections now available to Australian citizens"
- John Howard, 27th Aug 2009

"In Australia it is necessary to remember, when discussing civil liberties and rights, that one of the functions of common law has been to protect the individual against infringement of his or her personal rights"
- Sir Robert Menzies, 17th Jul 1971

Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1992) 177 CLR 106, which is as close as any Common Law case has ever gotten, didn't touch on the subject of free speech because it didn't implicitly need to:
Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd and New South Wales v Commonwealth [1992] HCA 45; (1992) 177 CLR 106 (30 September 1992) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/177clr106.html)
"The question is not whether the legislation ought be regarded as desirable or undesirable in the interests of free speech or even of representative democracy."

At any rate, it's never even once been questioned that it doesn't exist, so in that respect your viewpoint is entirely faulty.

I would suggest you look into Australia's Sedition laws and their laws against so-called "hate Speech" and then get back to me

[anthonyvop]

What are there in the way of non-insulting remarks to make to you, Tony, that aren't true? I have said before that I honestly believe a psychologist would have a field day with your statements, and those made — not just on this thread — in the last day bear this out.

I never said you posted a personal insult. Again you are using the trick of implying I said something that I didn't.

Some people would call that lying.

[Rollo]

So by your logic the people of North Korea are better off than those in the USA.

Sad that people think that way.

Explain how.

Please explain my own logic to me.

[Robinho]

In a gun controlled society, your risk of being shot by a firearm may be slightly less than otherwise, but you will not be without such a risk (your word). Ask the folks in Norway and other places if you doubt it.

So its not worth reducing a risk if it can't be completley eliminated?

I never sad there would be no risk of being ****, but risk management is about reducing risk to acceptable levels. THe number of mass shootings IMO is unacceptable andI think there needs to be a serious look at an effective way of reducing the availability of lethal weapons to would be mass murderers.

I don't doubt that as long as guns have existed, whether legally obtainable or not, there is a chance of being shot by one

[Robinho]

That's one of the silliest statements in this thread. People die almost every day as a result of illegally purchased guns. The source makes no difference at all.

And where do these illegal guns come from? They are part of the market of guns availabl in your country, probably mostly perfectly legal at one point and then lost into the black market. Limit the number (or stop altogether) the legal firearms and the illegal ones become much much harder to come across, simple supply and demand.

If the source makes no difference, outlaw the sale and ownership of guns. they are all either turned in or become illegal. The supply chain stops unless they are smuggled in. the net result is far less guns on the streets. Of course you will see a massive increase in knife crime immediatley after, but I would rather take my chances escaping a man with 4 knives than a man with 4 guns. Range is your friend in a knife fight.

[Rollo]

I would suggest you look into Australia's Sedition laws and their laws against so-called "hate Speech" and then get back to me

Article Three, Section 3 of the United States Constitution pretty well much covers the same sorts of acts, as does the Alien and Sedition Acts 1798 in the United States.

At any rate, going into a movie theatre and simply butchering people isn't remotely like waging war against the government. That is the issue at hand. Your argument at this point is little more than misdirection.

[Robinho]

I never said you posted a personal insult. Again you are using the trick of implying I said something that I didn't.

Some people would call that lying.

No, you said that I had used a personal insult (which I didn't, I used a generic one against a notion that seemed to be displayed within your opinion). BD simply continued the discussion, from the same side as I. You shoul first try to understand the things that are explicitly laid out in the words in front of you before trying to deduce potential implications, that may be fuelled by your standpoint, or paranoia or prejudice

[Robinho]

Why was a six year old at a batman movie premiere in the middle of the night??

It does seem odd, but then some of the injured were in adjoinging theatres, so may have been watching or leaving something else, but I certainly wouldn't have my 6 yr old out at the cinema past midnight

[BleAivano]

That's one of the silliest statements in this thread. People die almost every day as a result of illegally purchased guns. The source makes no difference at all.

Guns that could be stolen from people who legally bought them in the first place, meaning that if those weapons hadn't been bought.
There would not have been any weapons to steal and the sell illegally.

[A.F.F.]

Why was a six year old at a batman movie premiere in the middle of the night??

And a three months old baby ??

[BDunnell]

I never said you posted a personal insult. Again you are using the trick of implying I said something that I didn't.

Some people would call that lying.

A remark that makes some of my remarks all the more apposite, given that if you read my comments again, nowhere do I suggest that you ever said I posted a personal insult. I would like to say I had no idea how you managed to find that meaning, but in fact I know full well.

[markabilly]

I think that this is a very tragic event, and no time/place for those with agendas, pro or con.

[Roamy]

I've already heard one moronic comment on British news along the lines of "it's time to reopen the debate about these sorts of violent films". No, it really isn't. The shooter clearly has major psychological problems which can't be explained by watching a man in a rubber batsuit.

I've long since given up wondering whether the latest killing spree will be the one which tips the USA over the edge to actually consider changing their gun laws, as the Dunblane massacre did in the UK in the 90's. Guns are so ingrained in the culture that incidents like these seems to be brushed aside and life goes on - for most people - and clearly no Presidential candidate is going to risk upsetting the gun loons this close to an election.

A very sad situation.

Right DAVE - Take my gun so I can use PETN

[Roamy]

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02284/Veronica-Moser-Sul_2284154b.jpg

The girl in that photo is Veronica Moser-Sullivan. She died in the shootings, and her mother is critically ill in hospital. She was six years old.

Never mind, at least nobody's trying to harm your precious rights....

FFS.

Dave - Perhaps you could post some pictures of kids in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel etc. And furthermore had someone been packing they may have been able to pop this asshole save some lives. Denver/Aurora recently passed all this anti gun stuff and look at them. Society is dictating that we all carry guns not put them down. I can't even believe this asshole is alive and we will have to pay for him

[janvanvurpa]

And furthermore had someone been packing they may have been able to pop this asshole save some lives. Denver/Aurora recently passed all this anti gun stuff and look at them. Society is dictating that we all carry guns not put them down. I can't even believe this asshole is alive and we will have to pay for him


Hey Sgt Rambone this brilliant idea has already been exposed, and shown to be how shall we say politely so the Mods don't get all huffy? Stupid in the extreme..
See:
http://www.motorsportforums.com/chit-chat/153960-america-has-another-random-shooting-aurora-co.html#post1051855

aka Post 8 in this thread.



See if you can put the reasons why that's monumentally stupid, OK..
Here's the scenario:
Dark theater
Smoke and tear-gas,
Gunfire.
packed full off people screaming and running
DARK
Terror and panic filling the air..
GUNFIRE.
bodies and blood everywhere
DARK...
Panicked crowd


Are you getting the hint Einstein?


Your suggesting it, while in a safe and non-threatening situation in front of a keyboard, and yet you were unable to think of the EXTREMELY LIKELY outcome of a second/third/forth person firing in the crowded DARK theater packed with panicked people , says you show complete lack of judgement and as a result should a) never be allowed anywhere near firearms, b) not allowed to vote for feeble-mindedness.

So tightly held are the same thoughtless cliches, that without thinking (that is was inside a jammed DARK theatre) people trot out the lines hammered into their heads from relentless repetition of rhetoric of the misappropriately named "Right".

(Next I bet we'll hear the NRA line "Armed citizens stopped 3.9 million felonies last year...or some made up crap).


To the world:
This is a voter that suggests it would have been better had somebody begun firing away, in the dark in a room full of people..
This is what half the country "reasons" like..

It is why the country is in trouble..

[Robinho]

Not to pick too big a nit, but yes you did. Post #59.
"IMO the freedom to go about your day without the risk of being shot by a legally owned weapon"

Technically you've cut off the end of my quote, which I said this was more important than the freedom to own a gun. My point is clear, and refers to the "freedom" issue which is held so dear by the pro gun community. Perhaps I should have written "IMO the freedom to go about your day with far less risk of being shot by a legally owned weapon is more important than the freedom to own a gun", but the point is the same.

If we are nit picking rather than addressing the issue, technically there is no risk of being shot by a legally owned weapon if it is illegal to own a gun, which was also part of my point

[Robinho]

In the context of discussion about what is worse, getting shot with a legally or illegally purchased weapon, I bet you can't look in a mirror and say that with a straight face.

the context is reducing the risk of shootings, reducing the availability of guns legally available reduces the number of available weapons to shoot people with, and stymies the availability of illegal arms also

[Robinho]

undoubtedley the point I wanted to make and the words I wrote were slightly at odds, so I hope I've clarified, and I still maintain I'd rather be free to live with a reduced risk of being shot than in a society that allowed public gun ownership.

[Malbec]

You also ignore the fact that firearms are now and have always been legal here. There are tens of millions of legally owned weapons in the US. Should legal ownership be banned, sure some would turn theirs in. My guess is that most wouldn't. Voila, a huge increase in illegal weapons. Just because something is illegal does not make it go away, it just goes underground.

I think you're missing the point here.

There are so many illegally obtained weapons in the US because there is such a large legal market. If the legal pool wasn't so big then there wouldn't be so many guns to siphon off for the illegal market. Of course if the legal market was to evaporate tomorrow it would take a long time for the illegally obtained guns to fall in number but that doesn't negate the cause of the illegal gun pool.

In countries where firearms are difficult to obtain legally it is equally difficult and expensive for them to be obtained illegally as they have to be specifically smuggled in (with all the risks that entails).

[Malbec]

Guns are so ingrained in the culture

This is the whole point isn't it?

Despite all the references to the Constitution etc the fundamental fact is that the right to bear arms is ingrained in US culture. Tragedies like that on Friday are just that, tragedies. However isn't there a point at which we simply have to respect that gun ownership is part of American culture and that Americans as a society prepared to pay the price for that? It is not as if they are unaware of the consequences of gun ownership.

Muslims or Mormons could easily point to Britain and ask why alcohol is still legal, after all rationally speaking the cost to society of alcohol, the addiction, violence and health consequences are immense and probably results in as great a death rate as gun related incidents in the US. They'd have a good point too. What would our response be?

[BDunnell]

I refer you to Prohibition and 'The War on Drugs' to deny your assertion. It's said that the height of foolishness is to do the same thing over and over and expect a different result. If people want something, they will get it. And criminals, by definition, don't care what the law says.

You also ignore the fact that firearms are now and have always been legal here. There are tens of millions of legally owned weapons in the US. Should legal ownership be banned, sure some would turn theirs in. My guess is that most wouldn't. Voila, a huge increase in illegal weapons. Just because something is illegal does not make it go away, it just goes underground.

Equally, just because something has always been legal doesn't make it right.

[BDunnell]

This is the whole point isn't it?

Despite all the references to the Constitution etc the fundamental fact is that the right to bear arms is ingrained in US culture. Tragedies like that on Friday are just that, tragedies. However isn't there a point at which we simply have to respect that gun ownership is part of American culture and that Americans as a society prepared to pay the price for that? It is not as if they are unaware of the consequences of gun ownership.

Muslims or Mormons could easily point to Britain and ask why alcohol is still legal, after all rationally speaking the cost to society of alcohol, the addiction, violence and health consequences are immense and probably results in as great a death rate as gun related incidents in the US. They'd have a good point too. What would our response be?

One sensible response would be to point out the much greater horror involved in a gun crime.

[BDunnell]

Sorry to be bringing up an old quote. (Seems like just yesterday :p )

Yes, I believe that is a possibility. I've said it before that I think it's unlikely today. But, our constitution is NOT just for today, it's for as long as the country exists.

Nixon, with his plotting to undermine the democratic process, was flirting around the edges. Bush, with the whole Homeland Security apparatus; spying on citizens without warrants; secret courts and holding US citizens in indefinite detention overseas came even closer (actually way over the edge) to ignoring the checks and balances built into our system. All in the name of "protecting" us of course. Obama has been going around Congress to enact things by executive order.

I can see a day when, down the road, someone comes to office here and, probably in a future crisis and in the name of helping the country, takes control "just for the duration". Isn't that pretty much how Hitler and a number of other dictators started out? That is the major reason I don't want to over ride the second amendment. It was put there for a reason.

While I appreciate where you are coming from, and find your non-partisan approach refreshing compared to some others here, you then spoil it — to me, at least — with the note of insecurity and melodrama inserted at the end.

[A.F.F.]

IMO we have a very strict gunlaw here in Finland. And after two school shootings we had few years back, it's novadays a bit more strict. Majority of folks here doesn't have guns at home as they do not need them to protect their homes with guns. And should they? Last two years, we have had eight family murders here in Finland. Family murders where a father has either killed the whole family or just the kids. Here in Finland we have nothing to fear but the fear itself. So, let me just say it again. Here in Finland where is a very strict gunlaw people somehow get guns and then they do a massacre at school and kill dozen oif people. And we donät have guns at home as we do not need them because the threat comes inside the family because dads in Finland killo their families. And I guess the population here is less than in Colorado or Denver itself. Anyway, do you really think it's US alone? And if you do, we're in deeper trouble than I thought. There is something really wrong with the WORLD right now.

The only change I have notice compared to the previous shootings is that these killers are keen to survive. Like Breivik in Norway, this wannabe Joker surrended. Is this something new because previously those losers have killed themself before police got them?? My guess they need attention, and media worldwide kindly do what thay wish for :mark:

[BDunnell]

Anyway, do you really think it's US alone? And if you do, we're in deeper trouble than I thought. There is something really wrong with the WORLD right now.

I don't like the idea that this, or any similar incident, is a symptom of some sort of global malaise. Let's face it, there have always been people with the desire, for whatever reason, to commit crimes of terrible magnitude. It is hardly a modern phenomenon.



The only change I have notice compared to the previous shootings is that these killers are keen to survive. Like Breivik in Norway, this wannabe Joker surrended. Is this something new because previously those losers have killed themself before police got them?? My guess they need attention, and media worldwide kindly do what thay wish for :mark:

It's a vicious circle, and I will grant that, whatever one may think of a particular country's gun laws, nobody can be blamed for such an action other than the gunman themselves. Certainly, the media should not be held responsible. What are they to do other than report such an event?

[Malbec]

I fancy my chances against a drunk idiot (have done in the past) as opposed to a nutter who has selfishly decided to end the lives of many innocent people by strolling into a cinema and opening fire on people not expecting to be killed. Your point does make sense but the two are very different in terms of immediate impact IMO.

Mass shootings are mercifully rare, sufficiently so that they make headline news around the world when they happen. Can you say the same for alcohol fuelled violence?

[A.F.F.]

I don't like the idea that this, or any similar incident, is a symptom of some sort of global malaise. Let's face it, there have always been people with the desire, for whatever reason, to commit crimes of terrible magnitude. It is hardly a modern phenomenon.

I agree, it's not. But I claim that media feeds someone to do similar crimes, or even, better by their own standards. In those school shooting here in Finland there was a pretty simple pattern. The first one was a fan of Eric David harris and Dylan Bennet Klebold form the Columbine shooting. In his manifest stated so. And he wanted to do better. Guess who's fan the other shooter was? He was a fan of Pekka Erik Auvinen, the first shooter in Finland :mark:



It's a vicious circle, and I will grant that, whatever one may think of a particular country's gun laws, nobody can be blamed for such an action other than the gunman themselves. Certainly, the media should not be held responsible. What are they to do other than report such an event?

I strongly disagree. There are ways to repoert such an event. And then tehre are other ways of reporting them. I don't know your whereabouts BDunnell and in your location it might very well be so. But here in Finland, the way media reports events like these sometimes disgust me. Sometimes it is appropriate but sometimes it's just provoking with the lack of respect to the victims or their families. One could even think they celebrate the criminal.

[Rollo]

I can see a day when, down the road, someone comes to office here and, probably in a future crisis and in the name of helping the country, takes control "just for the duration". Isn't that pretty much how Hitler and a number of other dictators started out? That is the major reason I don't want to over ride the second amendment. It was put there for a reason.

Really?

Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States.
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attained.

You don't have the right to wage war against "Tyrannical Goverment" and Texas v White (1869) found that the Civil War was an illegal act. So if states can not wage war against the Union and the individual also can not, this whole argument is bunk.

If you want the reason why it was included, then read the feckin' amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It exists because in 1776 there was no free-standing army. Such a thing would have to be raised. That kind of evaporated with the formation of a permanent military, and to be fair neither an individual nor a State of the Union would stand much of a chance against something which costs more than $600bn a year to run.

Unless of course you're trying to tell me that 12 people in a cinema are somehow enemies of the state and needed to be eliminated? In that case then this truly was an act which was "necessary to the security of a free State" and Mr Holmes should be given a Secretary of Defense Medal for the Defense of Freedom? I don't think that's what you're trying to say.


This latest tragedy is unfortunately an acceptable risk for a widespread way of life. If it was unacceptable, it wouldn't happen so freely IMO.

Not only is this an acceptable risk for a widespread way of life (also see post 2) but sufficient numbers of people will actively defend it. We are going to repeat these statements in roughly 14 months time when another nutter will also kill innocent people, and then later in another 14 months. And thus the circle of death goes on.

[race aficionado]

I know the founding fathers did not talk about our right to own/drive cars - but how about we treat the responsibility of owning a bullet shooting weapon as is done with cars?

2988


Sent from a telephone booth in Broadway

[Malbec]

I strongly disagree. There are ways to repoert such an event. And then tehre are other ways of reporting them. I don't know your whereabouts BDunnell and in your location it might very well be so. But here in Finland, the way media reports events like these sometimes disgust me. Sometimes it is appropriate but sometimes it's just provoking with the lack of respect to the victims or their families. One could even think they celebrate the criminal.

I don't think its the way the media 'spin' an event thats at fault, its the fact that the media are now more global in outlook. I remember reading an article about the decline of local newspapers and media outlets over the past few decades coinciding with the rise in national and international media outlets. Basically whereas previously people were reading about local news events and things like Columbine would be buried in the back pages, nowadays international outrages gain far more prominence.

Basically criminality hasn't increased but our awareness of it has. Taking the US as an example over the past two or three decades they have seen a big decrease in violent crime, yet we outside the US (and probably inside too) perceive it to be just as violent or even more.

[BDunnell]

I agree, it's not. But I claim that media feeds someone to do similar crimes, or even, better by their own standards. In those school shooting here in Finland there was a pretty simple pattern. The first one was a fan of Eric David harris and Dylan Bennet Klebold form the Columbine shooting. In his manifest stated so. And he wanted to do better. Guess who's fan the other shooter was? He was a fan of Pekka Erik Auvinen, the first shooter in Finland :mark:

What should the media do, then? Not report these cases at all?

It's much the same with alleged influences on high-profile criminals — violent video games, films, etc. Yes, they may have been an influence on a warped individual, but this in itself is no reason to legislate.



I strongly disagree. There are ways to repoert such an event. And then tehre are other ways of reporting them. I don't know your whereabouts BDunnell and in your location it might very well be so. But here in Finland, the way media reports events like these sometimes disgust me. Sometimes it is appropriate but sometimes it's just provoking with the lack of respect to the victims or their families. One could even think they celebrate the criminal.

Yes, the type of reporting can sometimes be overly intrusive, sensationalist or whatever. But I am still left thinking that even the most sober reporting could still attract much the same forms of criticism.

[BDunnell]

Not only is this an acceptable risk for a widespread way of life (also see post 2) but sufficient numbers of people will actively defend it. We are going to repeat these statements in roughly 14 months time when another nutter will also kill innocent people, and then later in another 14 months. And thus the circle of death goes on.

One has to contrast such events in the USA with those that take place in other nations, for elsewhere one finds no mainstream defence of any aspect of the event, just disgust and revulsion. In the USA, one aspect is always defended, namely the right to bear arms.

[BDunnell]

I have no issue with people needing to attend training and pass a test to obtain a firearm, so long as it's not unreasonably used to deny ownership.

Define 'unreasonable'.

[race aficionado]

I have no issue with people needing to attend training and pass a test to obtain a firearm, so long as it's not unreasonably used to deny ownership. That's pretty much what you have to do in many "right to carry" states now, if you wish to carry.

Not sure how that will have any influence on the random wacko though.

When was the last time a car driver intentionally attack a crowd of people? (I'm not talking about suicide bombers here - I'm talking about a car driver that went through the legal regulations to be able to drive a car)

I'm not denying here that it hasn't happened somewhere in the world but I use this to accentuate the importance of regulations when it comes to operating a vehicle/gun that could hurt people if used incorrectly or irresponsibly.

[Rollo]

Haven't read the Federalist papers eh? That's where the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights give the reasons for what they wrote.

Not only do I find your reason entirely spurious, but it isn't even bounded in fact.

Federalist Papers Nos. 10 and 51 talk about pluralism and the separation of powers and specifically the only mention of "tyrannical government" happens in James Madison's Paper No.47. and again he talks about the separation of powers into the legislative, executive, and judiciary branches.
Not once do the mention that the people retain the right to wage war on the government and not once is the reason for the second amendment sighted as this.

LINK PLEASE

[A.F.F.]

What should the media do, then? Not report these cases at all?



Exactly. Or just a short approriate mention.

[BDunnell]

Using the screening process to prevent most people from acquiring the items.

What if most people were unsuitable?

[BDunnell]

Exactly. Or just a short approriate mention.

I'm afraid I find not reporting a mass shooting at all a bit fanciful. By the same token, would you ban violent films and video games because they are cited by a few as influences upon those committing such crimes?

[A.F.F.]

I'm afraid I find not reporting a mass shooting at all a bit fanciful. By the same token, would you ban violent films and video games because they are cited by a few as influences upon those committing such crimes?

No I wouldn't. But I don't think you catch my though here. Here in Finland, the way a couple of daily newspapers report, for example the schoolshootings, is massive. They print a floorplant of the building and they make a very accurate report how the shooter proceed, from where he entered the building, where he shot the first person and in which order the rest of the victims. They also tell how he prepared the shooting, what he did before it, from where he got the equipment etc etc....

I hear what you are saying but my opinion is that movies and games are different matter. Maybe we are more vulnerable to influences here but my personal opinion is that second school shooting would not have happened if the media would not have reacted the first shooting in such a forcefull manner.

In Los Angeles a man was arrested because he threatened "to go mental like in Colorado" because the movie didn't start at time. :mark:

But, it's clear we disagree with this and that's ok. I rest my case here.

Hello everyone. All I have to say is that the easy access to guns in the US no matter what type in many cases and the government giving free reign to the NRA who seem to pontifictae everytime there is one of these shooting, 20 per year in the US where people are killed or injured. In Germany the cops, in 2010 fired 400 rounds in total.
The answer is simple. All it takes is for those that are pro all types of killing machines to take notice and realize that they or a loved may be the next victim.

[gloomyDAY]

Some good news. Caleb Medley was shot in the eye, but is alive and he has become a father. His wife gave birth to Hugo! (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/woman-whose-husband-was-wounded-in-colo-shooting-gives-birth-mother-and-baby-doing-great/2012/07/24/gJQAJ7Xm7W_story.html)

[gloomyDAY]

In addition to being a woman, and potentially being raped in America at a cost of almost $5000 for a hospital visit, please make sure that some maniac does not wander into a movie theater and shoots you in the eye because you'll be about $2 million in the hole. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/24/caleb-medley-health-insurance_n_1699092.html)

[Rudy Tamasz]

I haven't scanned the whole thread, so maybe somebody's already raised the topic that I want to mention. Sorry for repeating then. Has anybody noticed the fact that this particular act of violence was styled after the movie that was being shown? Doesn't that rinng the bell?

[Malbec]

I'm afraid I find not reporting a mass shooting at all a bit fanciful. By the same token, would you ban violent films and video games because they are cited by a few as influences upon those committing such crimes?

In India the press deliberately do not report attacks on temples, mosques and churches (of which there are many resulting in deaths and injuries) because of the risk of fuelling further inter-religious violence. In that example I think there is a case to be made as there have been many previous incidents of isolated attacks snowballing into massive riots and killings, however in the case of these shootings I do think the link between one individual event sparking off others is far too tenuous to stifle freedom of speech.

[Alexamateo]

I haven't scanned the whole thread, so maybe somebody's already raised the topic that I want to mention. Sorry for repeating then. Has anybody noticed the fact that this particular act of violence was styled after the movie that was being shown? Doesn't that rinng the bell?

I noticed that.

One thing lost in the gun debate is that I don't think gun laws mattered one iota in this particular case. This was a very determined individual who used the premier of this movie to show up in "costume", thus being able to hide in plain sight. He wore a ballistic helmet, body armor, throat and groin protectors, and tactical gloves. No citizen with a concealed weapon permit was going to pull a gun on this guy and stop him. Also, the way his apartment was booby-trapped with explosives and gasoline indicate he was going to inflict carnage, guns or no guns. To be certain, access to guns made it easier, but his guy was going to kill people that night one way or another.

I have read almost all the posts and it amazes me how polarizing this issue is.

There was a post by a member that "asked, why was a six year old at a midnight movie". My answer to that

would be two fold as this argument has gone it's course.

First off, it is no persons business. Amazing that a person takes umbrage at a child at a movie so late at night ,


yet defends guns of all types as though they were toys.

Then I hear that very same question being asked by Fox news. Shifting the blame to the vitim. Mother loses her daughter. She is still in hospital and all Fox and the poster is concerned about is "why was she at the movies at 12AM.?

Where is the sickness now.

I brought my kids on a camping trip where there were suposedly no dangerous wildlife. Yet we saw two packs

of Coyotes. Nothing happened. Surprise for me and I was not obligated to explain the issue to Fox.

[driveace]

Just read in the papers that the APPLICATIONS to own a gun in this guys town,has increased by 43%!

[Rudy Tamasz]

I noticed that.

And a couple years ago a nutter attacked a kindergarten in Belgium dressed as Joker. That makes me think that graphic evil makes it from the screen to the real life. I start thinking that violent games and movies do incite violence.

[Malbec]

And a couple years ago a nutter attacked a kindergarten in Belgium dressed as Joker. That makes me think that graphic evil makes it from the screen to the real life. I start thinking that violent games and movies do incite violence.

Hmmmm another kneejerk reaction.

Batman being one of the biggest Hollywood franchises seen by 10s of millions around the world yet apparently 2 guys dressed up in Batman costumes and attacked people. As a causal link that has to be one of the weakest I've heard.

How about video games? FPS games like Call of Duty are the biggest gaming franchises around and earn more per game than a mere Hollywood blockbuster, yet somehow the 10's of millions of kids and young adults around the world who play them manage to resist the temptation to go out and shoot or hack someone to death...

I thought this whole 'games and films make killers' theory had been utterly demolished. It had legs when video games and comics were the preserve of geeks and the press could build up a nice campaign against them. Those days are over.

[BDunnell]

And a couple years ago a nutter attacked a kindergarten in Belgium dressed as Joker. That makes me think that graphic evil makes it from the screen to the real life. I start thinking that violent games and movies do incite violence.

You believe in individuals taking responsibility for their own actions, do you not? How can you reconcile these two standpoints? Furthermore, what about the many millions of people who watch such films and play such games who are completely unaffected by so doing? As stated above, yours as expressed here is a knee-jerk view.

Op de zakelijke kant, nike dunk (http://www.airmax90online.nl/)is ook zeer getalenteerde, in 1925, Haider (Lanvin) openen parfum sector, in 1926, ook instellen Haider (Lanvin) mannen kledingsector, opende een high fashion store aanbiedingen mannen precedent.
Rangna•lang Wen (Jeanne Lanvin) houdt voor het verzamelen van kleding en oude prenten Illustrator, voert ook regelmatig in de tour, blootstelling aan diverse kunstwerken, voortdurend verrijken hun design inspiratie. Daarom, in Haider on twerp werk, met 18, 19e-eeuwse stijl, en zeer exotische jurk, gedenkwaardige kan worden gevonden. Rangna•lang Wen (Jeanne Lanvin) voorkeur voor uni stof, borduurwerk technieken om een verscheidenheid van onderwerpen, decoratie afspeeleffect.
Begin in 1920, de Nike Air Max 1 (http://www.airmax90online.nl/) op een regelmatige basis namens Frankrijk op internationale conferenties. In 1926, de regering van Frankrijk benoemde haar tot gehouden in Parijs Frankrijk culturele tentoonstelling kledingsector verantwoordelijk, en in 1939 werd de rangna•lang Wen (Jeanne Lanvin) geselecteerd voor de New York World's fair van Frankrijk, de Voorzitter van de vereniging van speciale kleding.
In juli 1946, de rangna•lang Wen (Jeanne Lanvin) stierf in Parijs, bij 79-jarige leeftijd. "Romance" onder de eindverantwoordelijkheid van de familie Haider blijven werken. 1946-1958, rangna•lang Wen (Jeanne Lanvin) dochter van gravin lang Lignac (Marie Blanche de Polignac), on twerp, zijn neef, is Jiang•guomeng•lang Wen verantwoordelijk voor de werking.
In de late 80 begin 90, Parijs mode-industrie geconfronteerd met een herschikken van grote veranderingen, Senior Ladies sterven, Nike Air Max 90 (http://www.airmax90online.nl/) ook lijden ongekende beschamende situatie. In 1989, Jeanne Lanvin Orcofi S.A bedrijf (welke Henry Racamier Louis Vuitton beheermaatschappij) en de overnames van L'Oreal groep joint venture. In 1993, Haider (Lanvin) moet een trend, El Paso high fashion huizen van de edelen diensten alleen stoppen geavanceerde aanpassing (Haute Couture) productie, is geleidelijk hete verpakte kledinglijnen voor mannen en vrouwen.

[Rudy Tamasz]

I thought this whole 'games and films make killers' theory had been utterly demolished. It had legs when video games and comics were the preserve of geeks and the press could build up a nice campaign against them. Those days are over.

It hadn't. It hasn't been proven, either, to be honest and I do not present it as a proven thing. It is just a hypothesis. It takes a really objective research on a large scale to make a certain conclusion. I do not even think such is possible in a highly partisan and agenda driven modern world. However, nothing can stop me from supposing that people tend to replicate certain patterns of behavior publisized by media and arts in their real lives. For instance, I think, that was one of the reasons why we no longer see movie characters smoking, at least not in the mainstream movies.

[Rudy Tamasz]

You believe in individuals taking responsibility for their own actions, do you not? How can you reconcile these two standpoints? Furthermore, what about the many millions of people who watch such films and play such games who are completely unaffected by so doing? As stated above, yours as expressed here is a knee-jerk view.

Hey, you do like playing with concepts a bit, don't you? I though it was common knowledge that incitement is legally different from direct action and it is next to impossible to prove the former.

Speaking of unaffected millions of people, how do you know? Maniacs do not necessarily don costumes to indicate their cultural influences when they are going to massacre innocent victims.

Is this my thrid post? I thought I had a bunch on the Indycar forum.

Well, back to this topic since two police officers were shot today in Indiana.

What the hell is up with America and guns? I have two twelve gauge shotguns and use them for hunting and some down-the-line. Sport, basically.

What I am seeing and it saddens me, even with the photo of a little girl six years old is that there ws a huge defense and accusations thrown at the parents and no sympathy. What about the guns?

[Malbec]

What I am seeing and it saddens me, even with the photo of a little girl six years old is that there ws a huge defense and accusations thrown at the parents and no sympathy. What about the guns?

What surprises me is that you appear to believe that sympathy for the parents precludes astonishment that such a young child was at a late night screening of a violent film.

What doesn't surprise me is your writing style and the particular topic you chose to jump in on. Been here before?

What surprises me is that you appear to believe that sympathy for the parents precludes astonishment that such a young child was at a late night screening of a violent film.

What doesn't surprise me is your writing style and the particular topic you chose to jump in on. Been here before?

Been on this particular forum before? No.

Why are you surprised at my speaking on a topic that is very much in the news at this time?

You are, as you say astonished that the parents are receiving sympathy for the death of their daughter is in some way misplaced and the

question should be asked, why were they bringing their daughter to a movie at 12AM? Is that what you are asking?

I go to a forum where this topic is very much at the forefront of the minds of many and the conversations are heated back and forth.

The only difference is I never see anyone asked with a hint of accusation that someone is posting to cause an issue rather see that all that is

occurring is a discussion.

What is my writing style (not great judging) by my other posts?

I have posted thousands of times with Paper on 7th gear and others on CHAMPCAR FANATIC until it got crazy. Buzzflash, Bradblog and A

Autoracing1.I had a user name Forumla1man.

Does that answer the question?

[Malbec]

You are, as you say astonished that the parents are receiving sympathy for the death of their daughter is in some way misplaced and the

question should be asked, why were they bringing their daughter to a movie at 12AM? Is that what you are asking?

No.

Its a very simple point.

It is possible to feel sympathy for all those hurt and killed in the shooting AND wonder why a six year old girl was there so late at night. You seem to find this extremely difficult to understand.

As for your identity I think its up to the mods to decide, but the fact is that you only post on one topic and have a particular grammatical style extremely similar to a previous poster/s with an agenda is likely more than coincidence.

For you Malbec and you "Starter". I will leave this post and leave you both alone to wallow in your sophomoric paranoia.What business is it of yours to have parents bringing a six year old to a movie? Certainly not be be shot I would imagine in my simplistic understanding of what occurred. But then, people like you so gun defensive you will castigate the parents to defend your guns(sigh).By the way, have you shown any contempt for the shooter and expressed alarm at the availability of these weapons of destruction all over the US?No. What you do is play Sherlock Holmes and make me out to be something like a bogeyman or whatever. Go get a life. I posted on a topic.Starter, you seem to be in the same predicament as this Malbec person. AR1 is using this forum as a "shared" part of it's delivery of topics Etc. Am I correct as I am no subscribe to AR1. Now, before you go all 'moderator' on me and have the Malbec thing delve into my use of English (in fact, this forum is registered in the UK) I will step away never to return to your sanctimonious little meeting place where you see and wonder about various reasons to a posters desire to address an issue.Damn, how old are you people? I post Mr Starter Bossman because I could. No loner of interest to me in this amoebic location any longer.Oh, you can ban me (oooooh) and do whatever it is you do to make yourself important. I won't be here anyway.Makes one understand a little more everytime these events occur that their frequency is due to the many lunatic elements pervasive in their need to defend the mighty gun and illicit scorn on the children of a dead child for having the temerity to bring her to a movie at 12AM.

[Rollo]

Makes one understand a little more everytime these events occur that their frequency is due to the many lunatic elements pervasive in their need to defend the mighty gun and illicit scorn on the children of a dead child for having the temerity to bring her to a movie at 12AM.

The crux of this debate is what people value more... a so-called freedom to own certain instruments or human life.

Quite frankly, we've seen it proven quite vociferously that people value the former over the latter; hence the reason why we're going to see this sort of thing over and over again ad nauseum.

I said I would not post again. Apologies as I wish to correct a couple of errors. These lines in my post to Malbec and Starter should read; 'Am I correct as I am no a subscriber to AR1', 'No longer' and 'the parents of a dead child'

I am sure there are many other errors as I am unable to see these things (literally). If there are others I extend my apologies. The End.


I will go back to my racing.