Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

At least 20 hurt after shooting during 'Dark Knight' screening in Aurora, Colorado

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Jere View Post
    He was also in no means a criminal. Up until the murders he did everything legally. With an extremely bright kid like this it doesn't matter if guns were available or not, he would have improvised something. No citizens with guns in China and mass attacks still happen, often with knives because that is what's available.

    All involved with responding to this event did an excelent job. From the dispatcher to the first responders. Great job.
    Actually a minor point, he had been planning this for quite some time, when he started to plan, and started to acquire firearms and chemicals he became a "criminal"...in fact if he was acquiring highly energetic chemicals and compounds that alone is a criminal act may places, and a lot of that stuff ends up being meth precursors I think ?

    You do not have to be "extremely bright" to read "Anarchists cookbook" or "Poor mans James Bond"....although they tell me the former seems to be found a lot at the scene where morons blew limbs off.

    Bill
    Just pay your dues, and be quiet :-)

    Comment


    • You know, I think the word "hate" is thrown around too much, most people will never experience true hate.

      Now that I got that out of the way, dear God, I hate "anti-gun" people.....

      I don't hate that they don't like guns, to each his own, I don't even hate that they have an irrational fear of something that is inanimate, no more deadly in and of it self than a hammer or screw driver (which is all a gun is, a tool).

      I hate that they think, because 12,000 or so people are killed by someone using a firearm every year (by 11,000+ criminals, some killing are multiple homicide events), that 80 MILLION plus law abiding American Citizens should be stripped of their right to keep and bear arms.

      To put that in context with numbers:
      11,000 criminals using guns to murder per yer
      80,000,000 citizens who own guns peacefully and lawfully

      I hate that they don't apply that same thinking to anything else, like how despite that fact that there are more cars than guns in this country (270 million guns vs 247 million cars), more people die in motor vehicle accidents than to any form of "gun violence". Why no move to ban cars I wonder? maybe because they like them.

      None of that matters to them, to them the guns are evil, so they must go, regardless of the fact that many millions of people own many millions of guns and never ever hurt anyone.

      If you think like I do, read this article, but have a barf bag at the ready. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffr...b_1696604.html

      (Yea yea, I know, what can you expect from a liberal academic on a liberal "news" site. Still, this craziness exists).
      Last edited by BigMyk; 07-24-2012, 11:25 AM.
      ~Gun control has always been about punishing the people that didn't shoot anyone.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by BigMyk View Post
        You know, I think the word "hate" is thrown around too much, most people will never experience true hate.

        Now that I got that out of the way, dear God, I hate "anti-gun" people.....

        I don't hate that they don't like guns, to each his own, I don't even hate that they have an irrational fear of something that is inanimate, no more deadly in and of it self than a hammer or screw driver (which is all a gun is, a tool).

        I hate that they think, because 12,000 or so people are killed by someone using a firearm every year (by 11,000+ criminals, some killing are multiple homicide events), that 80 MILLION plus law abiding American Citizens should be stripped of their right to keep and bear arms.

        To put that in context with numbers:
        11,000 criminals using guns to murder per yer
        80,000,000 citizens who own guns peacefully and lawfully

        I hate that they don't apply that same thinking to anything else, like how despite that fact that there are more cars than guns in this country (270 million guns vs 247 million cars), more people die in motor vehicle accidents than to any form of "gun violence". Why no move to ban cars I wonder? maybe because they like them.

        None of that matters to them, to them the guns are evil, so they must go, regardless of the fact that many millions of people own many millions of guns and never ever hurt anyone.

        If you think like I do, read this article, but have a barf bag at the ready. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffr...b_1696604.html

        (Yea yea, I know, what can you expect from a liberal academic on a liberal "news" site. Still, this craziness exists).


        What we're essentially asking the anti-gun nuts in particular, and liberals in general is to exercise the ability to think rationally. It's always been amazing to me that seemingly intelligent, often well educated people can actually be so dismally stupid. They lack the rather simple ability or willingness to do a little deductive reasoning. If we as a society were to apply their "logic" and fuzzy thinking we'd need to ban automobiles. They kill more people in a year than firearms, We'd need to ban airplanes, passenger trains and busses. Virtually every time these transport modes crash, they kill and main people in the multiple. If a liberal were to approach one of us and say, I don't want to own or have a firearm. We're going to say OK. However, that same liberal will say in the same breath, "You can't have a firearm either". That's the difference, and what's really scary, it's only the tip of the ice burg .

        Comment


        • Some guy is now trying to sue the theatre and anyone involved. http://blogs.westword.com/latestword...st_lawsuit.php
          Been chatting to a girl online. She's funny, sexy and flirty. Now she tells me she is an undercover cop! How cool is that at her age!?

          Comment


          • Ok, now that I've wasted my time reading all the gun talk. Anyone actually have insight into that actual incident? How many still critically injured? How was he apprehended? I heard someone mention they had off duty LEOs working.. is that true? How many? How long did the shooting last?

            And what about his apartment? News reports I have seen seem to suggest it was a pretty sophisticated explosive.

            Anyone care to speculate on what made him snap? I'm guessing something sent him over the edge..

            Have you guys seen his online profile on adultfriendfinder?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by jannino View Post
              Ok, now that I've wasted my time reading all the gun talk. Anyone actually have insight into that actual incident? How many still critically injured? How was he apprehended? I heard someone mention they had off duty LEOs working.. is that true? How many? How long did the shooting last?

              And what about his apartment? News reports I have seen seem to suggest it was a pretty sophisticated explosive.

              Anyone care to speculate on what made him snap? I'm guessing something sent him over the edge..

              Have you guys seen his online profile on adultfriendfinder?

              If you wasted your time with all the gun talk, that was your call. No one here made you do it. For the latest updates on the overall situation, pick any "media" source which suits your fancy.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by BigMyk View Post

                To put that in context with numbers:
                11,000 criminals using guns to murder per yer
                80,000,000 citizens who own guns peacefully and lawfully

                .

                Here's how I approach the topic of "but guns are meant to Kill people" idiocy which I cut and past as a response having written it a while ago knowing full well I will see that stupid statement after such an event:

                What guns are intended for is irrelevant. Cars are intended for driving to work, yet kill 40,000 per year. Pools and bikes-designed for biking and swimming respectively-kill more kids per year then guns. What guns are USED for is what’s relevant. There are negative and positive uses for guns.

                A negative use of a gun is when a person commits a crime using a gun to commit it. That person is what is known as a criminal and all legal and or physical punishment should be applied to said person.

                The positive use of a gun would be to prevent a crime or save a life, such as the 120lb women who shoots the 210 rapist, the 80 year old man who prevents the burglar from coming into his home and doing him harm, or the shop owner who protects his life work from looters after a storm, and so on

                In that context, the ONLY relevant question is, what is the ratio of good to bad uses of guns? Between 700,000 (FBI’s data) and 2.5 million (Klecks data) times per year a gun is used in the in the US. in the positive sense Guns are used approximately 5 times more often to prevent a crime/save a life then they are to commit a crime.

                So why not just remove all guns from the hands of citizens to reduce crime (which is not even possible nor constitutional but mentioned here for the sake of argument) which should lower crime? On a much larger historical picture, history has shown us over and over and over what happens to a population that is disarmed by it’s own government: they become subjects, slaves, or dead. Hitler knew that all too well when he said:

                “History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." --- Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942.

                Thus, why the Second Amend exists and reveals a universal truth: the right to self defense - be it from criminals or a tyrannical government - is a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT no government can grant or take away. Those who do not view armed self defense as a basic human right, ignore the mass graves of those who died at the hands of tyrants.

                Great men of peace and war agree on that. For example:

                "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." -Mohandas K. Gandhi

                and

                "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." -- The Dalai Lama, (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)

                Guns are a necessary evil but necessary to a democracy and that fact was recognized by men far smarter then we are. For example;

                "A FREE people ought...to be armed..." -George Washington, speech of January 7, 1790 in Boston Independent Chronicle, January 14, 1790.

                And:

                "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws
                make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides,
                for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and punishment - (1764).

                And a more recent opinion:

                "That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or laborer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." --George Orwell


                This is no less true today then it was then, perhaps even more relevant today then it was then some have argued.


                Use your logical mind, do some research, leave what you think you know of the topic behind, and you will be shocked at what you find.
                - Will

                Performance/Fitness Advice For the Tactical Community

                www.OptimalSWAT.com

                General Performance/Fitness Advice for all

                www.BrinkZone.com

                Comment


                • Originally posted by FromOhio View Post
                  Some guy is now trying to sue the theatre and anyone involved. http://blogs.westword.com/latestword...st_lawsuit.php
                  The site's most recent Karpel offering describes three targets in the Brown suit over the shootings:

                  1. The theater. Karpel claims it was negligent for the theater to have an emergency door in the front that was not alarmed or guarded. It's widely believed Holmes entered the theater with a ticket, propped the emergency door open from inside, went to his car and returned with guns.

                  2. Holmes' doctors. Karpel says it appears Holmes was on several medications -- prescribed by one or more doctors -- at the time of the shooting and he believes the docs did not properly monitor Holmes.

                  3. Warner Bros. Karpel says Dark Knight Rises was particularly violent and Holmes mimicked some of the action. The attorney says theater goers were helpless because they thought the shooter was part of the movie.


                  Someone trying to cash in on this. Not surprised. Him and his lawyer are scumbags.
                  Look sharp, act sharp, be sharp.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by PhilipCal View Post
                    If you wasted your time with all the gun talk, that was your call. No one here made you do it. For the latest updates on the overall situation, pick any "media" source which suits your fancy.
                    I skimmed just enough to make sure I wasn't posting questions that could have been covered.

                    The thread title is about the tragic incident not gun control... we have how many other threads for that? Not to mention a specific section that it belongs to. Not my fault people can't figure out the appropriate forum sections.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by jannino View Post
                      I skimmed just enough to make sure I wasn't posting questions that could have been covered.

                      The thread title is about the tragic incident not gun control... we have how many other threads for that? Not to mention a specific section that it belongs to. Not my fault people can't figure out the appropriate forum sections.

                      Nope, you're missing it. Let's deal with YOUR time. It's yours to waste. However when you make that choice, don't blame it on the forum. Instead, proceed directly to the nearest mirror. Look directly into that mirror. You have now identified the person responsible for wasting your time. Content of the thread. Just a reminder, neither you nor I get to dictate the contents of the thread or the replies of the posters. If you think that the issue of "Gun Control" was inappropriate for this thread, then why not begin another thread to address the concerns you have, or the opinions you desire to express. In the event you're so concerned about how members and guests post on these forums, perhaps you should consider becoming a Moderator. Once more, the stated "waste of time" is on you.

                      Comment


                      • I'm curious to know if his body armor was for a ccw/off duty cop in the theater or was he prepared for the next north holllywood shootout?

                        Comment


                        • Read this on another forum.....

                          Colorado shooter sent snail mail about his plan to a UofC pysch prof.
                          The letter sat in a mail room for a WEEK and was delivered Monday.

                          Just heard on the radio news.

                          Guns don't kill people,people who don't do their jobs kill people.
                          Just pay your dues, and be quiet :-)

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by jannino View Post
                            I skimmed just enough to make sure I wasn't posting questions that could have been covered.

                            The thread title is about the tragic incident not gun control... we have how many other threads for that? Not to mention a specific section that it belongs to. Not my fault people can't figure out the appropriate forum sections.

                            jannino, let me come at this issue from just a little bit of a different perspective. You're a long time poster, and personally I've had no urge or desire to argue with your posts. I can fully, and do understand your desire to discuss the events in Aurora. You wish to discuss it as a separate issue, absent the gun control debate. That's great, I just don't think that discussion will take place in isolation on this site. Case in point. Already, our boy Sen Frank Lautenberg (D) New Jersey is preparing to introduce legislation further reducing the legal magazine capacity of semi auto and automatic weapons. OK, I'm not going to go into the latest lunacy from Mr. Lautenberg. I'm simply going to say, that the two topics, the one you wish to discuss as a "stand alone" and the gun control discussion(s) are joined at the hip. I know I suggested that you start another thread in an effort to discuss you comments. That probably won't work either, now that I think about it. Go ahead and attempt it if you feel so moved. I won't argue with your decision. Anyway, there it is, just some random thoughts to hopefully clear the air.

                            Comment


                            • This whole Colorado thing has taken on on urban legend status. The things taken as "facts" seem not to be.

                              1. "Tear gas", um no..a flash bang and a smoke bomb
                              2. "Automatic weapon" Um no..an AR15 that malfunctioned, and a use that could not clear the jam. "Armored from head to toe"...um NO, suppoesdly he was wearing a tac vest

                              blackhawk-urban-assault-vest-black.jpg
                              Just pay your dues, and be quiet :-)

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by willbird View Post
                                This whole Colorado thing has taken on on urban legend status. The things taken as "facts" seem not to be.

                                1. "Tear gas", um no..a flash bang and a smoke bomb
                                2. "Automatic weapon" Um no..an AR15 that malfunctioned, and a use that could not clear the jam. "Armored from head to toe"...um NO, suppoesdly he was wearing a tac vest

                                [ATTACH=CONFIG]9184[/ATTACH]
                                The body armor from head to toe was an interesting tid bit of information when I first heard of it. Why have the body armor at all if you are just going to surrender? If he really was wearing body armor it suggests he was looking for a prolonged gun battle. Perhaps his plans changed when he had to drop his rifle after the malfunction?
                                This show is awesome, wrapped in supercool and smothered in bitchin. The only way it could be cooler is if he was riding a unicorn or something.

                                M-11

                                Comment

                                MR300x250 Tablet

                                Collapse

                                What's Going On

                                Collapse

                                There are currently 5728 users online. 436 members and 5292 guests.

                                Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                                Welcome Ad

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X