Shooting at Movie screening of TDKR in Colorado

[JonDuke]

I'm not pro guns at all, but derailing this thread with all the gun talk here is kind of pointless, don't ya think?
Guns are just one tool of mass murder, and not the most efficient tool either.
Banning guns would make the next sicko turn to pipe bombs, grenades, suicide attacks, fertilizer bombs, etc. Murder is determined by what is in a person’s head/heart, not the tool in their hand.
Whether civilian gun ownership is a negative or positive for society is a subject which intelligent people can disagree, but when fighting the subject of mass murdering sickos perhaps we should focus more on the society that creates them and less on the tools they choose.
I'm a hypocrite for contributing to this pointless debate because, really...the focus should be on the victims of this tragedy. Nothing else.

[zunie75]

Originally Posted by Aleks

Well, in my line of work, someone with homicidal tendencies can be held under the mental health act, so yes he was.

Secondly, banning something will never stop the supply, it will only punish those of us who legally obtain, shoot and collect. You'll never fix everything

True banning wont completely stop gun violence, it will how ever make it harder to obtain a gun. In the US an average of 340,000 guns are stolen from legal gun holders ever years.

These guns are then sold on the black market to criminals etc. This abundance of easy to obtain fire arms on the black market keep the price of guns very affordable.

Solution? Ban all types of guns not used for hunting. This in turn will make it harder and more expensive for crazy folk to get illegal guns.

The same thing happens in Canada, albeit a much smaller number of guns are stolen, but thats because there are far fewer gun owners here.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by JonDuke

Murder is determined by what is in a person’s head/heart, not the tool in their hand.

But it's a lot easier to convert the desire in the head/heart when you have convenient access to a tool designed to kill.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Machiavelli

Define "pharmaceutical melt-down."

Well I don't know what he meant exactly but I can guess. Those who are on any sort of drugs for mental illness would have extreme reaction to stopping those meds. I've seen it in my own family with my brother who would go off of mood stabilizing drugs when he went on drinking binges. He would literally go crazy, like nothing he said made sense kind of crazy. We had no idea what he would/could do in such states.

Who knows if this guy was on any prescription drugs though.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by JonDuke

I'm not pro guns at all, but derailing this thread with all the gun talk here is kind of pointless, don't ya think?
Guns are just one tool of mass murder, and not the most efficient tool either.
Banning guns would make the next sicko turn to pipe bombs, grenades, suicide attacks, fertilizer bombs, etc. Murder is determined by what is in a person’s head/heart, not the tool in their hand.

It is still harder to construct a bomb by hand than it is to buy a gun.

The ease of which one can acquire lethal weaponry plays into how often they can be used lethally.

I get your point but don't agree that we'd see the same level of violence if guns were banned.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

And back onto topic, one of the victims was one of the survivors in the Toronto Eaton center shooting. Being subject to one shooting is bad enough.

http://news.sympatico.ctvnews.ca/hom...oting/5ea17146

To be fair she wasn't actually a victim of the Eaton center shootings. She was at the mall that day but had already left the mall (says right in the article).

I'm not discounting the fact that it's effed up that she was near one and a victim of the other shooting but it isn't really accurate to say she was a victim of both.

[Lobotroth]

Why do we need to know anything about this guy? Perspective is totally irrelevant; it doesn't matter if he was generally regarded as a "nice" guy, he showed his true character in destroying the lives of so many.

[zunie75]

Originally Posted by Sopure

He coloured his hair red and told police he was "The Joker"? WTF.

Insanity plea, blame it on movies...go figure.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by zunie75

The same thing happens in Canada, albeit a much smaller number of guns are stolen, but thats because there are far fewer gun owners here.

I think you'd be surprised.

Just for reference......

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01...r-owners-rcmp/

"Garry Breitkreuz is the Tory MP who drafted the legislation to repeal the long-gun registry currently before the House. He said his own independent research — gleaned from comparing Canada’s firearms import and export data — has shown there are between 16.5 and 21 million guns in Canada."

"Canadian Shooting Sports Association executive director Tony Bernardo agreed the RCMP’s estimates on the number of guns in Canada is way off.
“There are still seven, eight, nine, 10 million guns out there that are not in (the)system, and never were in the system,” he said.
Allister Muir, a spokesman for the Canadian Unlicensed Firearms Owners Association, said he has never held a firearms licence, but owns seven guns.
Muir said he thinks there are between 3.3 and four million firearms owners in Canada — registered or otherwise — and between 14 and 21 million guns."

.....pretty peaceful up here considering those numbers...

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Other than the horrible tragedy, the worst part of events like this are the ######ed sensationalist stories that the crackpot media like to cook up.

Was it comic books fault? Is it violence in movies fault? Are our theatres safe? and on and on.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Other than the horrible tragedy, the worst part of events like this are the ######ed sensationalist stories that the crackpot media like to cook up.

Was it comic books fault? Is it violence in movies fault? Are our theatres safe? and on and on.

So people still so that? Blaming video games is so 1990's.

I had a chuckle when a guy on CNN asked one of the movie goers if "the movie was still playing".

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

So people still so that? Blaming video games is so 1990's.

I had a chuckle when a guy on CNN asked one of the movie goers if "the movie was still playing".

Apparently they do.

2 of the top stories on the tragedy on google news are about theatre security/safety and the reaction of the comic book industry and implications that it was caused by comic books.

[BloodFetish]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

After reading about this guy a bit, I can't help but wonder if he had some kind of pharmaceutical melt-down.

The bulletproof vest, riot helmet, smoke grenade and guns were just a coincidence, then? Or did the pharmaceutical melt-down begin just before he started acquiring the hardware?

No, even though his reasons are not clear this was a planned attack.

[zunie75]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I think you'd be surprised.

Just for reference......

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01...r-owners-rcmp/

"Garry Breitkreuz is the Tory MP who drafted the legislation to repeal the long-gun registry currently before the House. He said his own independent research — gleaned from comparing Canada’s firearms import and export data — has shown there are between 16.5 and 21 million guns in Canada."

"Canadian Shooting Sports Association executive director Tony Bernardo agreed the RCMP’s estimates on the number of guns in Canada is way off.
“There are still seven, eight, nine, 10 million guns out there that are not in (the)system, and never were in the system,” he said.
Allister Muir, a spokesman for the Canadian Unlicensed Firearms Owners Association, said he has never held a firearms licence, but owns seven guns.
Muir said he thinks there are between 3.3 and four million firearms owners in Canada — registered or otherwise — and between 14 and 21 million guns."

.....pretty peaceful up here considering those numbers...

Still a small number compared to the hundreds of millions of guns in the USA.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by troutman

Do you think 71 people shot, including 12 dead, could have happened with just hand guns?

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

Possession of functional assault rifles by civilians is illegal in most nations, but there are a few notable exceptions

Why not? Easy enough to do with a shotgun, especially at close range. I would be more scared of a shotgun in a movie theatre than I would of any assault rifle.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by zunie75

An out right ban on any gun not used for hunting is the only way to go. All the people who say that having a gun as self defense need to re think that.

You know, contrary to popular opinion, there are people with concealed carry permits that are very well trained when it comes to firearms. If only ONE person was carrying in this movie theatre, they could have shot the guy. I know, I know....a stupid thing to think that someone besides law enforcement could actually do that, but everytime I read that people shouldn't carry to defend themselves that is exactly what I think.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by billybob123

Are you in Canada? Is the SKS restricted here because of the magazine?

The point that I think the OP was making is that an AK-47 can empty its 30-round magazine in 5-10 seconds. Your SKS can only hold, what, 10 rounds? So you would have reload twice in the same amount of time. It's also not fully automatic so would take longer to empty.

That being said, it seems like the panic that's caused lets people reload plenty.

First of all I like how the media and everyone else has latched onto the 'fact' that the guy was carrying an AK-47, when in fact it was an AR-15. Not that there is much difference, but it just goes to show how most people have no difference.

Either way, you might empty that 30 round magazine in 30 seconds. 27 of those shots will go into the ceiling. Spray and pray only works in the movies. Like I said, the shotgun probably did more damage.

Also, reloading? Anyone who has ANY experience with assault rifles can reload in a few mere seconds.

There isn't much difference in firearms IMO. Anyone of them is dangerous, so I also find it quite funny when people get all pissed off about assault rifles and choose to ignore the fact that a shotgun does WAY more damage at close range. There is a reason law enforcement uses them to breach.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Azure

Why not? Easy enough to do with a shotgun, especially at close range. I would be more scared of a shotgun in a movie theatre than I would of any assault rifle.

Absurd statement.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Absurd statement.

Really? You would argue that a semi-automatic assault rifle would do more damage at close range than a 12 gauge pump action shotgun?

If you want into a movie theatre, you're probably 10 feet away from the seats right at the door. If there were people sitting in the front row, which there probably were considering it was a pretty big movie, that shotgun would be absolutely lethal at close range. As opposed to a semi-automatic AR-15, where he had to point and aim, versus just aim in a general direction with the shotgun.

Cant' believe you're arguing about this.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Depends how you define damage. The shotgun is more powerful without a doubt, but it holds fewer rounds and takes much longer to reload. More guarenteed kills I guess, but not as many people will get shot because I'd say after one reload almost everyone would be out of the theatre.