Batman massacre: People killed at Dark Knight premiere [Archive]

rgc2005

21-Jul-2012, 07:32 AM

There is being prepared, being ripped off, being ridiculous and worrying the crap out of me levels of personal readiness.

I have ran into some truly scary people in my time but nobody scared me more than a quietly disturbed kid whose dad owned an ATF FFL 3 license. He was running around at night dressed like the guy in the picture above following police to runs for "Back Up".
It took one phone call to the ATF to have it pulled pending investigation.

In Louisville we have one of the largest independent gun shows in the world. They sell everything a Prepper, Preacher, Pimp, Property Owner could ever dream of for home defense or zombie onslaught.
The ATF and DEA love it because everybody shows up and they collect more intel in one weekend than they could collect with 100 drones and 1000 wiretaps.

Two pistols, a rifle and a shotgun are not an arsenal. Each has a legitimate sporting use and would never throw a flag up in any system. Smoke grenades are easily available even military grade. They cost a lot but they don't blow up so they are not regulated.

Regarding the comments about all of the combat gear, helmets and bullet proof vests available for civilian use. There is a greater chance of stopping the rain from falling. Almost every bit of combat gear has some sort of civilian equivalent. I can go to the nearest Walmart and buy climbing/biking/football/lacrosse helmets, mechanics overalls, black work boots, work gloves, Camping backpacks, fishermen's knives, etc.... and look just like a SWAT rat to the uneducated eye for less than $200 bucks.

Kevlar, the material that makes vests bullet resistant, is available anywhere from old tire sidewalls to luggage. The Mythbusters do stories about stuff like this all of the time.

If there is a will there is a way. The Perp in Colorado was a PHD student in Neuro-Science. This guy was almost a doctor not some crazy kid or deranged veteran on a mission. Just another highly intelligent whack job that managed to slip through the system unnoticed.

babomb

21-Jul-2012, 07:55 AM

Without getting into the guns debate, is there really any need for civilians to own ballistic vests, gasmasks, helmets etc? When I was between probably about 6 and 15 owning stuff like that was cool, me and my mates used to "play army" in full webbing, combats, helmets etc, but grown men who are neither in the military or police buying up ally kit like that? seems a bit strange to me.
This nutjob was obviously into collecting similar stuff
http://s3.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20110724&t=2&i=464851041&w=&fh=&fw=&ll=460&pl=300&r=2011-07-24T014703Z_01_BTRE76N04YJ00_RTROPTP_0_NORWAY-KILLER-VIDEO Yeah, cuz anything strange to you is wrong, correct??? And if you wouldn't do it, or if you don't understand why someone else would be into that, then there must be no need for it, right?
Why WOULD anyone want bulletproof vests and gasmasks? It's not like bullets and contaminated air can kill you!? And only the good guys use those against the bad guys, right!?
For 1 thing, in case you didn't notice, we're living in crazy times. You never know what's gonna happen. Obviously, as per the subject at hand.
Another thing, even though you don't think so, there are good reasons for citizens to own vest, helmets, and masks. It's strange to me that you would even entertain the idea that these things should not be available to the public. For 1, they save lives, 2 they don't on their own pose any threat to anyone. You can't kill or hurt someone with a helmet, vest or mask. So it's kind of like you're saying that just in the odd chance that the authorities might need to use lethal force against you, you shouldn't be allowed to own things that can protect you from them.
There are high profile people like celebrities, politicians, witnesses, and people who feel that at some point their lives could be put in danger so they like the piece of mind that protection from these items gives them. It's not up to other people to decide that that's strange or wrong and should therefore be outlawed. Those types of people are civilians, average Joe's. So if you outlaw those things, how would people who really have a use for them be able to get them? How about Bail Bondsmen, and journalists? They aren't law enforcement or military. So should people then apply to be considered a different class of citizen, so they can posses items that other small minded people don't think they need?
There's also collectors, who like to own things like that just like others collect rocks, comics, stamps. None of these items pose a threat to people, so what would the problem be? What about violent movies and video games? What possible need could people have for those? A conclusion could be drawn that anyone who enjoys violence on screen is just a nutjob waiting to happen. So why not outlaw it? A compelling case could be made in favor of banning it outright. It could really cut down on the amount of violence that occurs in real life.
The only thing in favor of allowing it is a little thing called freedom. And what's that even worth? I mean, c'mon, safety is so much more important than freedom.
we should create a list of approved activities. Ya know, things that pose no threat in any way. Things that aren't strange to anyone, things that could never be used in a crime of any sort. Games of any kind are out! Because someone could get upset they lost, and become violent. Or someone could cheat and get something they didn't earn.
I really hope you were kidding!!!!

Christopher Jon

21-Jul-2012, 08:14 AM

Roll call. Just checking in. Anybody missing?

shootemindehead

21-Jul-2012, 08:22 AM

It's horrible to say, but I was actually surprised by how totally unsurprised I was by this story.

These type of massacres have become so common-place in America, it's just one in a long line of similar events.

Tricky

21-Jul-2012, 09:57 AM

Yeah, cuz anything strange to you is wrong, correct??? And if you wouldn't do it, or if you don't understand why someone else would be into that, then there must be no need for it, right?
Why WOULD anyone want bulletproof vests and gasmasks? It's not like bullets and contaminated air can kill you!? And only the good guys use those against the bad guys, right!?
For 1 thing, in case you didn't notice, we're living in crazy times. You never know what's gonna happen. Obviously, as per the subject at hand.
Another thing, even though you don't think so, there are good reasons for citizens to own vest, helmets, and masks. It's strange to me that you would even entertain the idea that these things should not be available to the public. For 1, they save lives, 2 they don't on their own pose any threat to anyone. You can't kill or hurt someone with a helmet, vest or mask. So it's kind of like you're saying that just in the odd chance that the authorities might need to use lethal force against you, you shouldn't be allowed to own things that can protect you from them.
There are high profile people like celebrities, politicians, witnesses, and people who feel that at some point their lives could be put in danger so they like the piece of mind that protection from these items gives them. It's not up to other people to decide that that's strange or wrong and should therefore be outlawed. Those types of people are civilians, average Joe's. So if you outlaw those things, how would people who really have a use for them be able to get them? How about Bail Bondsmen, and journalists? They aren't law enforcement or military. So should people then apply to be considered a different class of citizen, so they can posses items that other small minded people don't think they need?
There's also collectors, who like to own things like that just like others collect rocks, comics, stamps. None of these items pose a threat to people, so what would the problem be? What about violent movies and video games? What possible need could people have for those? A conclusion could be drawn that anyone who enjoys violence on screen is just a nutjob waiting to happen. So why not outlaw it? A compelling case could be made in favor of banning it outright. It could really cut down on the amount of violence that occurs in real life.
The only thing in favor of allowing it is a little thing called freedom. And what's that even worth? I mean, c'mon, safety is so much more important than freedom.
we should create a list of approved activities. Ya know, things that pose no threat in any way. Things that aren't strange to anyone, things that could never be used in a crime of any sort. Games of any kind are out! Because someone could get upset they lost, and become violent. Or someone could cheat and get something they didn't earn.
I really hope you were kidding!!!!

Well this shows the huge difference between the UK and the US, because to be honest as much as people here don't particularly like successive governments or trust them, there are very, very few people in this country that feel the government is "out to get them" or that they need to be "prepared" for some apocalyptic scenario by stockpiling all that kind of kit. The only places you can buy that kind of kit in the UK is from military surplus shops or online sites, and by & large the only people who buy it are Airsoft/Paintball Walter Mittys who get a bit carried away, nutjobs or serving soldiers who want a bit more kit than the standard stuff they are issued.
You can buy hard hats, hazmat suits & respirators from hardware shops for working with chemicals etc, but none of it is dolled up like military/SWAT gear.
For the record I have access to a rifle, several shotguns and a collection of air rifles for pest control. I also own a Russian gas mask, kevlar British Army flak jacket and an Iraqi kevlar helmet, all of which are just relics brought back from Op Desert Storm back in '91 and given to me when i was a kid, cool to own but in no way would I even think of them as "preparation" for some imagined threat. We just don't live under that kind of fear over here.

Mr. Clean

22-Jul-2012, 01:27 AM

Brace yourselves folks....gun control bills are about to go CRAZY.

babomb

22-Jul-2012, 03:31 AM

Well this shows the huge difference between the UK and the US, because to be honest as much as people here don't particularly like successive governments or trust them, there are very, very few people in this country that feel the government is "out to get them" or that they need to be "prepared" for some apocalyptic scenario by stockpiling all that kind of kit. The only places you can buy that kind of kit in the UK is from military surplus shops or online sites, and by & large the only people who buy it are Airsoft/Paintball Walter Mittys who get a bit carried away, nutjobs or serving soldiers who want a bit more kit than the standard stuff they are issued.
You can buy hard hats, hazmat suits & respirators from hardware shops for working with chemicals etc, but none of it is dolled up like military/SWAT gear.
For the record I have access to a rifle, several shotguns and a collection of air rifles for pest control. I also own a Russian gas mask, kevlar British Army flak jacket and an Iraqi kevlar helmet, all of which are just relics brought back from Op Desert Storm back in '91 and given to me when i was a kid, cool to own but in no way would I even think of them as "preparation" for some imagined threat. We just don't live under that kind of fear over here. Well, the US n UK GOV's are intertwined. So, IMO, you have the same things to worry about as we do as far as politics on the world stage are concerned. Your lives are still run by big business just like ours. Maybe the UK GOV does a better job of downplaying these things, IDK. I do know however that concerns about GOV corruption and totalitarianism are NOT unfounded. Our GOV is a very dangerous and out of control global entity. The US GOV is a threat to the entire world. Most of all to it's own citizens. You have to remember that the US is a nation born of violent overthrow of power. We're also only a little over 300 years old. So maybe the UK is just better at controlling its citizens because it's had alot more time to refine that craft. But I don't buy for a nanosecond that the UK is immune to or somehow efficient enough to avoid the problems that the rest of the world are currently experiencing.
The US has certain things in the BOR that seem to be nothing more than an annoyance to those in power here. Yet, these things are very important to citizens. Like the 1st and 2nd amm. Our country is being outsourced by big business, which makes our way of life much harder. Our politicians only care about votes and private business contracts. The US is headed in a very dangerous direction, completely to the dismay and against the will of all of the people here. We're being dumbed down by advertising and TV so that our leaders have an easier time screwing us over. Here in the US, votes are purchased through promises that are never kept.
Things are getting so bad here that it's becoming apparent that the only possible solution is violent revolution. And our leaders understand this, so they make every attempt to make this impossible. The big thing is private ownership of firearms, there's been people and groups that have been trying to abolish this for decades. And they do it under the guise of being concerned about the safety of the people. They don't listen to the people, or act out of true concern for the people in any other areas. But, we're supposed to believe that they want to save us from ourselves by abolishing firearms?
Everything here in the US is based on lies and greed! Maybe that doesn't mean much to folks from other countries, but we're here living this nightmare every day. So to you and others from across the pond, violent revolution might seem like a pipe dream and an impossibility. But to us, it could be the ONLY hope to reclaim this nation. So no matter how far fetched others think it is, or how much of a pipe dream they see it as, we have to protect it as it may be the only option in the long run.
No offense to anyone from the UK or anywhere else, but when you say that revolution is a pipe dream or impossibility, we see this as words from people with a broken spirit, people with no real fight left in them. That's what the Brit's said to the founding fathers of America back in the day, and look at what that impossible pipe dream resulted in!
I mean, of course you don't see that as a viable option because it isn't an option to you. I don't really know how some of you guys see your situation abroad. What would your options be if your GOV became like our GOV? Where the vote was manipulated and perverted to the point where it no longer was even effective? Where all your jobs are going overseas and nobody has health care, hardly anyone has money to do anything, everyone is extremely far in debt and losing their homes, all your rights are being taken away in the interest of national security?
I really don't think that people from other countries can truly appreciate the situation here in the US! All they see is what filters through the global media. Which is always spun in the way that certain interests want people to view the situation, it doesn't tell the whole story.
US aggression as you see it in the world stage isn't limited to other nations. That same aggression is used against US citizens, it's just cloaked in politics. For instance, the Iraq invasion. Would the answer to that problem be for the Iraqi people to give up their weapons and ability to resist? no! That would make it an order of magnitude worse for them. Which is the same here.
It seems like others think that the situation in the US is just politics, citizens that can't agree on how the nation should be run, and people who don't want to give up anything for the greater good. But that's not the case. The situation is that we're an occupied nation from within, being enslaved by corporate aggressors that care nothing about the people, and have perverted the political process that should be used to make things better for the people, not better for big businesses profit margin.
You can't get a real perspective on the situation here by spending a week or 2 seeing the sights, or coming here on a work vesa for a couple years tax free. That doesn't represent what it's like to be a citizen here, to deal with the problems that citizens face on a daily basis. So you can't really sit back and say "America needs to get rid of their guns to create a more peaceful society", because you don't understand the bigger picture. You disregard the #1 reason for having those guns as a pipe dream or conspiracy theory.

-- -------- Post added at 09:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:13 PM ----------

Brace yourselves folks....gun control bills are about to go CRAZY. UN small arms treaty!!! read this-http://www.naturalnews.com/036536_James_Holmes_shooting_false_flag.html

bassman

22-Jul-2012, 03:49 AM

So a thread about an undeniable tragedy has turned into a political debate? This is the world we live in, I suppose.

I really shouldn't be surprised. Certain people should be ashamed of themselves.

krisvds

22-Jul-2012, 07:29 AM

So a thread about an undeniable tragedy has turned into a political debate? This is the world we live in, I suppose.

I really shouldn't be surprised. Certain people should be ashamed of themselves.

My thoughts exactly. Pointless and in bad taste...

babomb

22-Jul-2012, 08:15 AM

These are the implications of the tragedy at hand. Were we just supposed to post our condolences to the victims but not talk about the situation? I could see if we were at a funeral for the victims, but we're not. This is a message board on the internet. Why would we not talk about the situation and the implications of it? It just doesn't make sense.
Nobody in this thread arbitrarily attached these political implications to the situation. They were already there. It's actually quite possible that this tragedy was engineered in order to create fear and drum up support for an already existent political agenda. Nobody in this thread created that, some of us just addressed it.
So i don't understand why anyone should be ashamed of themselves for discussing it.

I don't have all the social niceties that most people do. I have trouble picking up on social cues. So now I'm confused as to what we can talk about regarding this.
Alot of the details of the situation don't add up. The shooter was an unemployed grad student. he collected unemployment. But somehow managed to accumulate upwards of $20,000 worth of tac gear, became proficient with it all, learned how to rig extremely complex explosive devices. But after the shooting he surrenders without incident. THEN, after learning to create and rig all those explosives, he tells the cops about them? He already killed multiple people and wounded many others. So you can't claim that he didn't want more people to die out of concern for his legal defense in the matter. he's already looking at the death penalty or life without parole. So he wouldn't be looking at any more time by killing police with his explosives. Allowing that to happen could have helped his case by destroying evidence that could be used against him. It's not like he could've planned this whole thing but never thought about the evidence in his place. What other reasons would he have to booby trap the house?
Why would you wear a ballistic vest, leg, arm, neck, and groin extensions on it and a helmet, if you didn't plan on shooting it out with police? That was what he planned for. He wouldn't plan this, then execute the majority of the plan, then just get cold feet and decide enough people died and surrender himself and tell about the explosives. That doesn't fit the situation.
I think this guy had help!

Mr. Clean

22-Jul-2012, 09:16 AM

wayzim

22-Jul-2012, 01:10 PM

I don't have all the social niceties that most people do. I have trouble picking up on social cues. So now I'm confused as to what we can talk about regarding this.

Alot of the details of the situation don't add up. The shooter was an unemployed grad student. he collected unemployment. But somehow managed to accumulate upwards of $20,000 worth of tac gear, became proficient with it all, learned how to rig extremely complex explosive devices. But after the shooting he surrenders without incident. THEN, after learning to create and rig all those explosives, he tells the cops about them? He already killed multiple people and wounded many others. So you can't claim that he didn't want more people to die out of concern for his legal defense in the matter. he's already looking at the death penalty or life without parole. So he wouldn't be looking at any more time by killing police with his explosives. Allowing that to happen could have helped his case by destroying evidence that could be used against him. It's not like he could've planned this whole thing but never thought about the evidence in his place. What other reasons would he have to booby trap the house?

Why would you wear a ballistic vest, leg, arm, neck, and groin extensions on it and a helmet, if you didn't plan on shooting it out with police? That was what he planned for. He wouldn't plan this, then execute the majority of the plan, then just get cold feet and decide enough people died and surrender himself and tell about the explosives. That doesn't fit the situation.
I think this guy had help!

Lot of assumptions here. Getting unemployment doesn't automatically equal poverty - just like student doesn't mean punkass kid. James Holmes was going for his PHD, after all. That being the case, goal oriented research can take you far in planning a holocaust.

According to the testimony of at least one gun shop owner, Holmes was on a learning curve where his arsenal was concerned, asking alot of questions on how to use the assault rifle, so we're not talking about an expert markmans here - which might explain why he couldn't clear his weapon after it jammed. So far I haven't heard that he was using any target ranges for practice - yet.

The booby trapped apartment - there's a supposition that it had been meant to be a distraction for first responders, since Holmes had deliberately left loud music playing that night to attract attention there. It's been suggested that a noise complaint might have brought the cops and set off the explosives - lowering the number of responders at the cinema. I think that telling the cops might have been a final act of bravado - that perhaps he hoped they might actually set off the explosives in trying to disarm them?

As for why he did all this, who really knows? Until he actually opens up his mouth, we'll never really know for sure.

Way Zim

Sammich

22-Jul-2012, 07:57 PM

What isn't being reported by the mainstream media is that Cinemark has had a no firearms policy in their theaters since 2009. There have been incidents of management forcing people legally carrying firearms being forced to leave.

http://ttag.zippykidcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Cinemark-gun-ban-notice-courtesy-vdcl.org_.jpeg

What also isn't being reported by the mainstream media is in March 2012 the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed that University of Colorado students with concealed firearms permits were allowed to carry on campus.

Colorado Supreme Court affirms that CU students with permits can carry concealed guns on campus (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_20104814)

It doesn't take a neuro scientist to figure out why Holmes didn't try pulling a Virginia Tech style shooting at his University and chose the "gun free" theater instead.

Businesses with "no firearms allowed" policies have been repeatedly warned that it would open them up to all sorts of liabilities, as it implies that they are taking on the full responsibility for the safety of their patrons. Cinemark will most likely be sued into bankruptcy after the lawyers get in on the act.

-- -------- Post added at 06:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:45 PM ----------

I think this guy had help!

Survivor statements imply that there was another person involved.

DM8qdVeIlao

There are also reports that Holmes had a room mate and both were seen leaving the apartment before the shooting took place.

wayzim

22-Jul-2012, 08:24 PM

What isn't being reported by the mainstream media is that Cinemark has had a no firearms policy in their theaters since 2009. There have been incidents of management forcing people legally carrying firearms being forced to leave.

http://ttag.zippykidcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Cinemark-gun-ban-notice-courtesy-vdcl.org_.jpeg

What also isn't being reported by the mainstream media is in March 2012 the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed that University of Colorado students with concealed firearms permits were allowed to carry on campus.

Colorado Supreme Court affirms that CU students with permits can carry concealed guns on campus (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_20104814)

It doesn't take a neuro scientist to figure out why Holmes didn't try pulling a Virginia Tech style shooting at his University and chose the "gun free" theater instead.

Businesses with "no firearms allowed" policies have been repeatedly warned that it would open them up to all sorts of liabilities, as it implies that they are taking on the full responsibility for the safety of their patrons. Cinemark will most likely be sued into bankruptcy after the lawyers get in on the act.

-- -------- Post added at 06:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:45 PM ----------

Survivor statements imply that there was another person involved.

DM8qdVeIlao

There are also reports that Holmes had a room mate and both were seen leaving the apartment before the shooting took place.

I don't know anything about this room-mate story, could you provide a link? But the one dudes speculation about an accessory in this crime seems fairly doubtful right now. Most reports state that Holmes was already in theatre 9 ( where he'd bought a ticket ) that he'd exited through a door near the screen ( likely using something to block it from closing completely ) and went to his car which was parked nearby.

Didn't know about the right to carry policy on campus, that's an interesting idea and we'll know more once the shooter starts talking.

Way Zim

Sammich

22-Jul-2012, 11:19 PM

Holmes supposedly had dayglo orange hair, yet none of the witnesses mention this about the person that got up to open the emergency exit. Also, aren't those exits supposed to be wired to an alarm?

Here is another witness that says he had an accomplice:

Witness: Someone let gunman inside Colorado movie theater (http://www.wkyc.com/news/article/252995/396/Witness-Someone-let-gunman-inside-Colorado-movie-theater-)

"As I was sitting down to get my seat, I noticed that a person came up to the front row, the front right, sat down, and as credits were going, it looked like he got a phone call. He went out toward the emergency exit doorway, which I thought was unusual to take a phone call. And it seemed like he probably pried it open, or probably did not let it latch all the way. As soon as the movie started, somebody came in, all black, gas mask, armor, and threw a gas can into the audience, and it went off, and then there were gunshots that took place."

-- -------- Post added at 10:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:08 PM ----------

As for the room mate it was reported on msnbc but the article has strangely been changed.

Here is a mention I could find on another site:

Theater shooting suspect was graduate student at Colorado medical school (http://arklatexhomepage.com/fulltext?nxd_id=261082)

Public records indicate that Holmes lived with two roommates, also from California, in the Aurora building where police have found explosives, at 1690 Paris St., Apt. 10. The building is reserved for students, faculty and staff from the medical campus.

Neil

23-Jul-2012, 09:23 AM

"As I was sitting down to get my seat, I noticed that a person came up to the front row, the front right, sat down, and as credits were going, it looked like he got a phone call. He went out toward the emergency exit doorway, which I thought was unusual to take a phone call. And it seemed like he probably pried it open, or probably did not let it latch all the way. As soon as the movie started, somebody came in, all black, gas mask, armor, and threw a gas can into the audience, and it went off, and then there were gunshots that took place."

You would think it would be difficult for him to get in through a fire escape without help! Surely they have CCTV around the outside of the cinema?

babomb

23-Jul-2012, 09:41 AM

Lot of assumptions here. Getting unemployment doesn't automatically equal poverty - just like student doesn't mean punkass kid. James Holmes was going for his PHD, after all. That being the case, goal oriented research can take you far in planning a holocaust. Poverty or not, all that gear cost quite a bit of money. Some of it you just can't buy outright like that. You can't just buy tear gas grenades, or military grade smokers. You can still get smokers through other means, but surplus stores don't sell them and to order them out of a catalog or online you have to show proof that you're a law enforcement officer or active military. Most catalogs and online shops restrict ballistic vests like that also. This is due to that bank robbery in CA where the 2 guys wore them and the police didn't have sufficient weapons to deal with them at the time.
I realize that student doesn't mean punkass kid. I never for a second thought he was some punk kid. My thoughts on him being a student were that students are usually struggling for money. With tuition, room and board, food, transportation.

The booby trapped apartment - there's a supposition that it had been meant to be a distraction for first responders, since Holmes had deliberately left loud music playing that night to attract attention there. It's been suggested that a noise complaint might have brought the cops and set off the explosives - lowering the number of responders at the cinema. I think that telling the cops might have been a final act of bravado - that perhaps he hoped they might actually set off the explosives in trying to disarm them?
That makes sense. Everyone would be at the apartment after the explosion, giving him time to get away. Which could also explain the smoke or tear gas grenade. He was planning on getting away. Between a distraction at his apartment, and concealing himself with the gas mask and grenade, he thought he could get away. So knowing that, it's really strange that he surrendered without incident.
If he was having a difficult time learning to use the AR to the point where he couldn't clear the jam, learning to rig those explosives would've also been a challenge. A much bigger challenge. Yet, he never makes a mistake while rigging them, never accidentally sets any of them off. That takes some skill! That's not information you can get at the library, and we've not heard anything about the police having his computer and finding evidence of him browsing sites that teach ordinance making skills. Normally that's one of the 1st things you hear about when something like this happens. That the suspect had been talking online about things that may be related, or reading about things that would help him carry out his plan. Making a bomb/s draws on a few different skill areas. Chemistry, detonation mechanisms. Some of them were improvised munitions made by modifying fireworks, but others were very sophisticated devices. It wouldn't take this long to disarm improvised fireworks. The guy would also have to be a moron to think that fireworks would achieve the results he was looking for.
Then there's the roommates. The guy must have wanted them dead or something. The most likely scenario for the explosives would've been for one of the roommates to set them off. The apartment is rigged with trip wires, there's music blaring, but where the hell are the roommates through all of this?
Then there's the strange situation with the shooter having no background. He was basically non-existent. noboy knows anything about him. Only a few people have said that they've even seen the guy in passing on campus. And who knows if they even did see him or if they thought they did, or are just lying to have a moment in the spotlight.

As for why he did all this, who really knows? Until he actually opens up his mouth, we'll never really know for sure. They'll never tell us that

Neil

23-Jul-2012, 08:51 PM

In court...

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/61760000/jpg/_61760361_de27-1.jpg

-- -------- Post added at 08:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:53 PM ----------

Hate the way some sites are seemingly using this as a soap box, and almost just being patronising to people.

For example, AICN had an article a few das ago, and now now we have "Stand Up And See The Dark Knight Rises This Weekend" at CinemaBlend. Do they think without their advice we'd all be cowering in fright at home - http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Stand-Up-See-Dark-Knight-Rises-Weekend-32045.html

We know he was a random loon... We know there's no real risk in going to the cinema or indeed even this specific film. So please so these stupid flag waving articles!

Sammich

23-Jul-2012, 10:10 PM

We know he was a random loon... We know there's no real risk in going to the cinema or indeed even this specific film. So please so these stupid flag waving articles!

It is another example of tragedies being exploited for private financial gain that ranks up there with the "they hate us for our freedoms" and "freedom fries" bullshit.

Are the theaters and movie studios going to be offered bailouts also? Give me a damn break.

rgc2005

24-Jul-2012, 09:00 AM

You can't just buy tear gas grenades, or military grade smokers. You can still get smokers through other means, but surplus stores don't sell them and to order them out of a catalog or online you have to show proof that you're a law enforcement officer or active military. Most catalogs and online shops restrict ballistic vests like that also. This is due to that bank robbery in CA where the 2 guys wore them and the police didn't have sufficient weapons to deal with them at the time.

I beg to differ on this point. Go to the next gun show advertised in your area. You will find booths full of the stuff. Old/Used vests, CS/Smoke grenades, helmets, etc.... The military surplus industry is very much alive, legal and doing quite well.

SymphonicX

24-Jul-2012, 11:53 AM

Here's an interesting article:

http://theweek.com/article/index/230878/4-attempts-to-instantly-politicize-the-dark-knight-rises-massacre

3. Blame it on the ongoing attack on Christian values
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) tried to score a conservative twofer, says Jennifer Bendery at The Huffington Post. First, he suggested that a "senseless crazy act of terror like this" is somehow linked to the "ongoing attacks on Judeo-Christian beliefs" in modern America. People try to push God out of the public square, Gohmert says, but such shootings show how much we need his "protective hand." Then he put in a plug for concealed weapons. "It does make me wonder, with all those people in the theater, was there nobody that was carrying a gun that could have stopped this guy more quickly?"

-- -------- Post added at 11:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:24 AM ----------

Apparently, the US's gun crime rates are 8 times higher than any western country with similar gun laws. So the issue here IS NOT gun ownership, in my eyes!!

An important point - one that helps both sides move on from the answer to this problem being percieved as tighter gun control.

The issue here is SOCIETY...

I can see a few issues:

1) You live in constant fear of a totalitarian regime/communism/terrorism/
2) You live in a society that purports two conflicting messages: We are an independent nation of non-conformists who are one nation, under God....erm...
3) MEDIA. No one brings it up. Biased media, partial media - whatever you want to call it. News should NOT have a political agenda (if anywhere, the newspapers) - all sorts of corrupt shit happens. Your media is based on fear, terror, fear, pain, prevention of fear, more fear, and a tad of passive aggressive racism.
All sorts of junk food for the brain on your tellies - a massively sexualised advertising industry that's psychologically honed to make you feel as shitty as possible in the shortest amount of time.
4) Nationalism. "You're either with us, or against us. Probably against us."
5) Religion and it's over bearing expectations that cross the line from absurd into complete and utter madness.

What these illustrate though isn't the cause of gun crime, or the cause of a nujob like Holmes doing what he's doing...

...but it's the fear generated by these things that cause you to stop talking to each other, to stop identifying these problems in people and providing community support structure.

Instead the fear instilled into you by these organisations or thought-processes cause you to stop communicating, draw yourselves into a bubble, and look after your immediate loved ones and yourself - hence the fear of a need to own a fully equipped array of weapons.

Neil

24-Jul-2012, 12:16 PM

^^ This is all a very interesting topic. I don't know what the answer in the US is. Gun ownership is so instilled culturally there would have to be a huge shift in mindset for people to be willing to lose guns, and indeed it would take a generation or two to even achieve it.

And indeed, guns isn't just the sole answer either, as there's a huge cultural reason why there's so many gun deaths in the US, while other countries - with similar gun laws - have fewer deaths.

Just don't know what the answer is...

Mike70

24-Jul-2012, 03:04 PM

The issue here is SOCIETY...

I can see a few issues:

1) You live in constant fear of a totalitarian regime/communism/terrorism/
2) You live in a society that purports two conflicting messages: We are an independent nation of non-conformists who are one nation, under God....erm...
3) MEDIA. No one brings it up. Biased media, partial media - whatever you want to call it. News should NOT have a political agenda (if anywhere, the newspapers) - all sorts of corrupt shit happens. Your media is based on fear, terror, fear, pain, prevention of fear, more fear, and a tad of passive aggressive racism.
All sorts of junk food for the brain on your tellies - a massively sexualised advertising industry that's psychologically honed to make you feel as shitty as possible in the shortest amount of time.
4) Nationalism. "You're either with us, or against us. Probably against us."
5) Religion and it's over bearing expectations that cross the line from absurd into complete and utter madness.

What these illustrate though isn't the cause of gun crime, or the cause of a nujob like Holmes doing what he's doing...

...but it's the fear generated by these things that cause you to stop talking to each other, to stop identifying these problems in people and providing community support structure.

Instead the fear instilled into you by these organisations or thought-processes cause you to stop communicating, draw yourselves into a bubble, and look after your immediate loved ones and yourself - hence the fear of a need to own a fully equipped array of weapons.

you know NOTHING of America or Americans other than what you see on TV, yet you have the stones to dare lay out some 5 point plan as to why Americans are the way they are? please. you are just as guilty of slurping up what the media tells as you as the people you accuse. you have always struck me as someone with more wind in their mouth than brainpower in their head and now you have proved it once and for all.

the issue here isn't guns at all. it is why people feel the need to murder large numbers of people at once and lash out in these sorts of ways. it goes on everywhere. mass murders, whether they happen by gun, by bomb, or by poison gas, happen all over the globe.

I'm an atheist who does not watch any sort of visual news media, lumping every American into "manipulated by the media" camp is horrifically simplistic and utterly stupid. that list of yours is full of meaningless labels and hot button words folks like to throw around because it de facto invalidates the opinion of the person on the other side of the label.

in my opinion, everyone ought to live in fear of totalitarianism and dictators. it is because people get too comfortable or too lazy that these kinds of govts. arise.

i agree with bassman on this one: it is rather f*cking sick that folks like you have chosen to take an event like this as yet another opportunity to climb up on your moral high horse in order to air out political ideas/agendas like a bunch of stale farts.

there are enough knee-jerk reactions in the world and absolutely nothing good comes out them.

i'm not making a knee jerk reaction. i'm finally doing something i've been meaning to do for a long time: put you on my ignore list so i don't have to insult my brain with anymore of your bullshit.

-- -------- Post added at 10:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:52 AM ----------

So a thread about an undeniable tragedy has turned into a political debate? This is the world we live in, I suppose.

I really shouldn't be surprised. Certain people should be ashamed of themselves.

i'll totally f*cking agree with you, bassman. a lot of the british members of this forum have gone way out of line by pretending that they somehow understand america/americans and are making complete f*cking asses of themselves in the process. next time a suicide bomb goes off somewhere i'm gonna turn the thread into a debate on banning fertilizer because it is so easy to make into a bomb.

Neil

24-Jul-2012, 04:17 PM

^^ hey hey! Let's all take a step back shall we...

As a Brit I'm happy with the gun laws we have over here in the UK, and realise there's no way they'd work over in the US where the view on weapons and their ownership is very different to the UK etc etc... The US clearly has a lot of gun related deaths, but I really just don't know what the answer is to help that.

Anyway, on a side note, how is the media handling the death of the six year old? Why on earth was a six year old even in that film, that late? I know I wouldn't take a six year old girl to it!?

bassman

24-Jul-2012, 05:01 PM

Warner Brothers is going into crisis management mode (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118056910). Several networks have stopped airing TV spots for TDKR and now WB is pulling all trailers for their upcoming film, Gangster Squad, which features a gang shooting through a screen and into a crowded theater(trailer below). I can understand pulling the prints and editing out that scene from the trailers, but they're also saying that they're going to edit the scene out from the actual movie?? I can't imagine what those people in Colorado are going through, but changing what is said to be a crucial moment in a film that was completed long before this tragedy? At least prolong the release of the film rather than editing out important scenes! What's next......a complete third act edit to Inglorious Basterds?

VUQNpG5SVnY

Anyway, on a side note, how is the media handling the death of the six year old? Why on earth was a six year old even in that film, that late? I know I wouldn't take a six year old girl to it!?

Exactly my thoughts on it. Whether or not the child is old enough to handle the PG13 Batman films is debatable from parent-to-parent, but to be at a 12:01 AM screening? WTF is that about?

What's even worse is that the six year old wasn't even the youngest child there! One couple brought a FOUR MONTH OLD BABY (http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981488017). When the shooting began, the father actually abandoned his children and left the theater without his family. A 19 year old boy who was uninjured and almost out the door saw the mother frantically trying to protect her baby and went back to save them, gaining bullet wounds in the process.

The mother still plans to marry the baby's father. WTF?????

Danny

24-Jul-2012, 05:32 PM

Warner Brothers is going into crisis management mode (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118056910). Several networks have stopped airing TV spots for TDKR and now WB is pulling all trailers for their upcoming film, Gangster Squad, which features a gang shooting through a screen and into a crowded theater(trailer below). I can understand pulling the prints and editing out that scene from the trailers, but they're also saying that they're going to edit the scene out from the actual movie?? I can't imagine what those people in Colorado are going through, but changing what is said to be a crucial moment in a film that was completed long before this tragedy? At least prolong the release of the film rather than editing out important scenes! What's next......a complete third act edit to Inglorious Basterds?

VUQNpG5SVnY

kind of reminds me when they cut the twin towers out of a spiderman trailer and shopped it out of the movie, at a certain point art always imitates life even unintentionally. its just the randomness of life and art imitating it. short of something like saw a lot of stuff that happens to unfortunate people in films has happened to people in real life too. In cases like these though it just shows folks are far more eager to sweep it under the rug in precaution to escape possible blame and finger pointing than find the root of problems these days. Which in this case wasnt a gun control problem, the guy just happened to live in a country where that was a convenient venue, the problem is people dont give a fuck anymore and whenever someone goes 'psycho' its always "he seemed wierd" after the fact. People like this shooter are disturbed, had someone noticed and given them aid for their ailing mental health before this would never have happened.
Thats nothing to do with america, or gun control, its a universal constant for people. our mental health is our last bastion of supposed impenetrable stability and anythign else means 'being crazy' so people view needing mental health care as something shameful and the ultimate failure. Society as a whole needs to better look after its mental wellbeing so people like this can be noticed earlier and given the help someone so disturbed clearly needed way before it got to this.

LouCipherr

24-Jul-2012, 05:58 PM

kind of reminds me when they cut the twin towers out of a spiderman trailer and shopped it out of the movie, at a certain point art always imitates life even unintentionally.

Yup. It was a bitch move then, and it's a bitch move now with Gangster Squad.

If you can't handle the content of the movie, don't go see it. It's pretty fucking simple. These people should not have to alter their films because something happened between when it was made and when it was released that was beyond their control.

Political correctness once again ruins everything. :rolleyes:

SymphonicX

24-Jul-2012, 09:53 PM

you know NOTHING of America or Americans other than what you see on TV, yet you have the stones to dare lay out some 5 point plan as to why Americans are the way they are? please. you are just as guilty of slurping up what the media tells as you as the people you accuse. you have always struck me as someone with more wind in their mouth than brainpower in their head and now you have proved it once and for all.

the issue here isn't guns at all. it is why people feel the need to murder large numbers of people at once and lash out in these sorts of ways. it goes on everywhere. mass murders, whether they happen by gun, by bomb, or by poison gas, happen all over the globe.

I'm an atheist who does not watch any sort of visual news media, lumping every American into "manipulated by the media" camp is horrifically simplistic and utterly stupid. that list of yours is full of meaningless labels and hot button words folks like to throw around because it de facto invalidates the opinion of the person on the other side of the label.

in my opinion, everyone ought to live in fear of totalitarianism and dictators. it is because people get too comfortable or too lazy that these kinds of govts. arise.

i agree with bassman on this one: it is rather f*cking sick that folks like you have chosen to take an event like this as yet another opportunity to climb up on your moral high horse in order to air out political ideas/agendas like a bunch of stale farts.

there are enough knee-jerk reactions in the world and absolutely nothing good comes out them.

i'm not making a knee jerk reaction. i'm finally doing something i've been meaning to do for a long time: put you on my ignore list so i don't have to insult my brain with anymore of your bullshit.[COLOR="Silver"]

-- -------- Post added at 10:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:52 AM ----------

.

In previous thread I basically agreed with what most of your post said by saying something fairly similar.

"the issue here isn't guns at all. it is why people feel the need to murder large numbers of people at once and lash out in these sorts of ways. "

That's what I'm saying. Exactly what I'm saying. I'm throwing up a few things that look a bit obvious to me. It's just because I'm not American that you're getting all prissy and high-horsey about it.

I'm not politicising it whatsoever - politicising it would be to talk about gun control - which I'm saying this is a subsidary argument to the real issue. You've already just agreed with that...

You know I've gotta add that it's really so so rubbish to feel as though I have to provide a contrasting and equivalant point about the UK every time I level a criticism against America. America aint perfect, and by the UK is so fuckin' not perfect - the bottom line is America is the most powerful nation in the world - when it sneezes, the world catches a cold. OF COURSE everyone's gonna have an opinion about how you do things.

Just like many people have opinions on how Iran does things, or Syria, or Japan. Providing an outside viewpoint does NOT make someone so hideously against a country that they are just trying to take cheap shots. Christ.

If you've got me on ignore, good for you. I've not ignored a single member of this board and their opinion, no matter how I might disagree, is deserving of that sort of childish reaction.

shootemindehead

24-Jul-2012, 11:24 PM

Anyway, on a side note, how is the media handling the death of the six year old? Why on earth was a six year old even in that film, that late? I know I wouldn't take a six year old girl to it!?

[URL="http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118056910"]Exactly my thoughts on it. Whether or not the child is old enough to handle the PG13 Batman films is debatable from parent-to-parent, but to be at a 12:01 AM screening? WTF is that about?

I honestly think that the fact that a mentally disturbed man can go into a gun shop(s) and tool up with a personal arsenal of two handguns, a pump action shotgun, a semi-auto assault rifle, 6000 rounds of ammo, a helmet and a suit of body armour with the most appalling ease, trumps any WTF that someone might have at bringing a 6 year old to a midnight Batman film.

childofgilead

25-Jul-2012, 12:10 AM

What I'd like some of our UK friends to understand is that there are some of us who enjoy your culture and ideals very much. I love watching the rare programs you export this way, I'm currentlymaking my way through the whole run of Top Gear on Netflix for the third time as I type this.

However, the points I'm about to raise are going to ruffle feathers on both sides of the Atlantic.

If American culture is only stagnating and not on the decline I would be extremely surprised. We're obsessed with "reality" programs, doesn't even matter what it is, if it's a multi-cam set up with arguments going on, people apparently feel a compulsion to watch. Personally, I think it's trash. I don't care if it's the Kardashians or Red Jacket gunmakers, it's all shit.
We hold fame as an ideal to achieve, doesn't matter how or why, but so many just want to be famous.
Case in point, Mr Sean Penn in that movie clip above. Asshole loves to tell people how their lives should be run, sides with the left side on any and all issues, yet stars in films with violence. But this isn't seen as hypocritical, because he votes the way that's acceptable by Hollywood standards.
Doesn't matter that he's a waste of humanity, doesn't matter that he and his ilk like Alec Baldwin abuse photogs and reporters, they're higher up, better than the common man because they can afford someone to protect them when the police can't.

And let me tell you a secret. The police CAN'T protect the average citizen. I've experienced it too many times in my personal life. I've lost close family friends to gun violence. But it was a madman who pulled the trigger. The police, when called arrived minutes after he'd placed the gun in his own mouth, after killing his son and wife and grievously wounding his daughter, and squeezed the trigger, blasting his sick, depraved brains all over his ceiling.

He was always giving off a vibe of an abusive husband and father. The police had been called several times and nothing could ever be done. Then, on that day, he walked straight into his home and began shooting. No warning, no chance to protect themselves.

Now, some may be assuming that I believe that if his wife had access to a gun everything could have been different. In this situation, I don't see how anything could have changed. There simply was no warning, no chance at all for her to escape or fight back.

So yes, I believe the mental health "industry" in this country needs a serious overhaul. I've worked in this field for several years now and I can tell you from flat out experience, if a paranoid schizophrenic wants to kill you they don't need a handgun. They'll use an ink pen for instance. Or their fingers, into your eyeballs. Their teeth can be used to tear open your throat or in the joint of your elbow and your arm is useless because of the nerve damage and bloodloss.

On every time I've had to use a restraint or physical force to subdue a patient, I've come away in borderline shock, adrenaline pounding through my veins, shivering in anger and fear. Going up against someone who can go from sane to something else in the literal blink of an eye is always a traumatic experience. Take it from me, if I had a hopped up meth head coming at me in the parking lot at night after work, I'd much rather have my .45 on my hip than in my console or at home. It's not a get out of death free card, but against someone who is almost inhumanely strong due to mental defect, it's sometimes the only advantage a normal person will have.

We also have a huge gang problem in my country. We've prided ourselves on being a melting pot for many generations, but so many people who make the trip over aren't interested in assimilating into a new culture and just want the presumed opportunities this place offers, without making the next step and actually becoming an citizen.

This is why the gang problem has spread from the larger cities out into the suburbs, even into the small areas where I reside. Drugs are a cancer to this area, it's a pipeline, straight from Charlotte, North Carolina into Washington, D.C., Baltimore, Philadelphia and New York City. Meth is manufactured in the old mining towns and distributed by poor white trash into the urban areas, where it's either cut and sold on the street or shipped further up the road.

Several years ago, a kid I went to high school with got into some trouble with the law. However, since he was highly regarded, since his family came from money and since the girl he killed in the drug fueled car accident wasn't highly thought of, it was all hushed up.

When the sheriff who swept this and many many other things under the carpet got caught taking bribes from a meth distributor, he was fired, WITH pension, pending an investigation. That was four years ago.

Now, what does all this have to do with gun violence? Honestly, even I don't know anymore. If you feel that firearms really are that repugnant, you should let it be known to everyone. Why not make a big sign and place it outside your home, on your lawn. "I do not own a gun." Such a short sentence.

If you believe in your convictions so highly to be able to tell ME that I don't have the right to make the choice for myself, why not let the entire world know? Each and every person that drives or walks or slinks past the home where you sleep at night. They should all be able to see how devoted to human rights you consider yourself to be. C'mon, do it! Let everyone know!

shootemindehead

25-Jul-2012, 12:57 AM

He was always giving off a vibe of an abusive husband and father. The police had been called several times and nothing could ever be done. Then, on that day, he walked straight into his home and began shooting. No warning, no chance to protect themselves.

Now, some may be assuming that I believe that if his wife had access to a gun everything could have been different. In this situation, I don't see how anything could have changed. There simply was no warning, no chance at all for her to escape or fight back.

I've bolded the important words in your sentence above.

You see, I believe that weapons shouldn't be available to just anyone and it's far too easy to buy the most ridiculous type of weaponry in the States at the moment. I think that this situation NEEDS to be tightened up.

Somebody who has exhibited the above traits and has been the subject of police action SHOULD NOT be allowed near weapons at all and if they possess them, they should be taken off of them.

babomb

25-Jul-2012, 05:12 AM

Here's an interesting article:

http://theweek.com/article/index/230878/4-attempts-to-instantly-politicize-the-dark-knight-rises-massacre

-- -------- Post added at 11:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:24 AM ----------

Apparently, the US's gun crime rates are 8 times higher than any western country with similar gun laws. So the issue here IS NOT gun ownership, in my eyes!!

An important point - one that helps both sides move on from the answer to this problem being percieved as tighter gun control.

The issue here is SOCIETY...

I can see a few issues:

1) You live in constant fear of a totalitarian regime/communism/terrorism/
2) You live in a society that purports two conflicting messages: We are an independent nation of non-conformists who are one nation, under God....erm...
3) MEDIA. No one brings it up. Biased media, partial media - whatever you want to call it. News should NOT have a political agenda (if anywhere, the newspapers) - all sorts of corrupt shit happens. Your media is based on fear, terror, fear, pain, prevention of fear, more fear, and a tad of passive aggressive racism.
All sorts of junk food for the brain on your tellies - a massively sexualised advertising industry that's psychologically honed to make you feel as shitty as possible in the shortest amount of time.
4) Nationalism. "You're either with us, or against us. Probably against us."
5) Religion and it's over bearing expectations that cross the line from absurd into complete and utter madness.

What these illustrate though isn't the cause of gun crime, or the cause of a nujob like Holmes doing what he's doing...

...but it's the fear generated by these things that cause you to stop talking to each other, to stop identifying these problems in people and providing community support structure.

Instead the fear instilled into you by these organisations or thought-processes cause you to stop communicating, draw yourselves into a bubble, and look after your immediate loved ones and yourself - hence the fear of a need to own a fully equipped array of weapons. I have to agree with this. I personally don't take offense to observations made by people from other countries. I think that people from other countries can provide a wider perspective on our society because they aren't caught up in it.

It comes down to the fact that we as a nation and society worship money. That's why our media has a political agenda. Because our media is owned by huge corporations that push those political agendas in order to appeal to a certain demographic. They try very hard to stay in good graces with the companies that advertise on their stations. They push the political agenda of the people that control those companies.
They push fear like a drug dealer pushing his product. Because fear is a major component of controlling the US population. You can get people to do almost anything, to accept almost anything if you speak to their fears. Fear is demoralizing, for many people it's paralyzing.
The US is in the throws of a war on it's people. The war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on guns. All these "wars" equate to a war on the people. The point of these wars is not to win them either. It's to protract them in order to harvest the fruits they continually bring in. Which boils down to wealth and greed.
Politicians and corporations exploit the way our system is designed to maximize profit and control over future profit. They're the 1%, so they have ALL the money. Wealth brings power. So they use that power to psychologically dominate the population. To restrict peoples options to only the ones they provide and control. And they do it in a way that makes you think that you actually made that choice yourself.
Religion does the same thing. Restricts your options to only those that are beneficial to the controlling interest. In other words, it means control over you individually, which in the larger picture means control over everyone.
America is used as a platform to exert control over the global population. That's what all the wars abroad are about. Resources. But they mask it through propaganda. They try to make us believe shit like that the Iraq war was about liberating the people from an evil dictator and preventing them from acquiring nuclear weapons. Or the war in Afghanistan is about liberating women and routing out Al-Queada. Whatever happened to Al-Quaeda anyway? You don't hear much about them anymore. Are we supposed to believe that since Bin Laden was killed they've been eradicated? Please...
Now the big thing is Iran and Syria's nuclear program. So we must act to protect Israel.
This has become an all out police state. And it's not about the security of the people, it's about control of the people.
IMO, this nation shouldn't even be called America anymore. It's not America. I'm not sure what it is anymore but I know it's not America.

-- -------- Post added at 11:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:50 PM ----------

kind of reminds me when they cut the twin towers out of a spiderman trailer and shopped it out of the movie, at a certain point art always imitates life even unintentionally. its just the randomness of life and art imitating it. short of something like saw a lot of stuff that happens to unfortunate people in films has happened to people in real life too. In cases like these though it just shows folks are far more eager to sweep it under the rug in precaution to escape possible blame and finger pointing than find the root of problems these days. Which in this case wasnt a gun control problem, the guy just happened to live in a country where that was a convenient venue, the problem is people dont give a fuck anymore and whenever someone goes 'psycho' its always "he seemed wierd" after the fact. People like this shooter are disturbed, had someone noticed and given them aid for their ailing mental health before this would never have happened.
Thats nothing to do with america, or gun control, its a universal constant for people. our mental health is our last bastion of supposed impenetrable stability and anythign else means 'being crazy' so people view needing mental health care as something shameful and the ultimate failure. Society as a whole needs to better look after its mental wellbeing so people like this can be noticed earlier and given the help someone so disturbed clearly needed way before it got to this. While i agree with the points you're making I just want to point out a couple problems with this as a practical measure.

How could anyone have gotten him mental help? You can't go around court ordering random people to undergo mental health evaluation. He would've had to break a law or exhibit behavior that makes him a direct threat to himself and/or others. Just being strange isn't grounds for intervention by anyone except your family or close friends. And even then, the person can't be forced to cooperate. Something like that has too much potential for abuse and would not be economically practical. The state would end up footing the bill for all this. You'd have people getting forced into treatment for stupid shit. Like families staging interventions on their kids just for being rebellious or because they don't agree with the choices the kids are making on things. Then you have the added burden of maintaining prolongued treatment for conditions that may or may not even exist. Therapy is expensive, so are the prescription drugs that would inevitably be the basis of the treatment program.
What you're saying is basically a preemptive measure against people who just stray from the "norm". And who gets to decide what the "norm" is? This would end up being exploited for political and monetary gain, just like everything else. It's an erosion of freedom.

1 thing this whole thread is teaching me is that there are ALOT of people willing to trade liberty for safety. Which is exactly the reaction they're trying to create.
There's a term for this now. It's called "Disaster Capitalism". It's when a disaster or harmful event is exploited for political and monetary gain.
Because at this very moment, when Obama's approval rating is dithering, and an incident like this shooting occurs, they can introduce legislature for gun control with Obama's endorsement. Which will effectively guarantee his re-election. I also don't think legislation should be born of raw emotion. Laws should be made using logic, not by the galvanization of people after a violent event.

rgc2005

25-Jul-2012, 09:14 AM

I work part time at a bookstore. Today corporate ordered us to take down this week's issue of "Entertainment Weekly".
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/07/24/article-2178476-143363E6000005DC-632_468x606.jpg

Neil

25-Jul-2012, 09:54 AM

Gun sales rise since attack - http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_21142159/gun-sales-up-since-tragedy

Background checks for people wanting to buy guns in Colorado jumped more than 41 percent after Friday morning's shooting at an Aurora movie theater, and firearms instructors say they're also seeing increased interest in the training required for a concealed-carry permit.

bassman

25-Jul-2012, 05:23 PM

Classy move, Bale (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/24/christian-bale-aurora-victims-shooting-dark-knight_n_1699662.html). :thumbsup:

http://www.joblo.com/newsimages1/bale_visits_3.jpg

http://www.joblo.com/newsimages1/bale_visits_2.jpg

babomb

25-Jul-2012, 05:31 PM

Gun sales rise since attack - http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_21142159/gun-sales-up-since-tragedy
People are realizing that their lives and safety and the safety of their families is their own responsibility. The authorities can only do so much, and they're never there when the shit is actually happening, they only show up in the aftermath in most cases.
This is a good thing. People should be taking responsibility like this. It's just too bad that it takes some horrible event like this to make people see that.
Another reason people are doing this now is because they know that there's a good possibility that stricter gun laws will be put into place, so they're getting them while they still can.
Any new gun legislation will most likely include a grandfather clause. So people who already own certain weapons will be allowed to keep them. Going out and trying to round up peoples firearms would create an incredibly volatile situation.

On a different note, just to show how ridiculous this whole nanny mindset is and how far people will take it, there's now a "war on soda" here in the US. Some people think that choices need to be made for people for their own good. So rather than allowing people to decide what beverages they drink and how much they drink of it, there's a push for legislature to restrict the size of soft drinks that people are allowed to buy. What this shows is that there are no limits to how far the GOV will go to control people.
There's also a bill that aims to ban privately grown organic foods for sale and trade. They want all the produce to be regulated by the GOV. They want everyone to be highly dependent on the GOV.
They want to make sure that people can't get anything that doesn't make a profit.

SymphonicX

25-Jul-2012, 10:13 PM

Neil

25-Jul-2012, 10:17 PM

People are realizing that their lives and safety and the safety of their families is their own responsibility. The authorities can only do so much, and they're never there when the shit is actually happening, they only show up in the aftermath in most cases.
But surely this is just people being scaremongered into buying guns? In reality do those guns actually make them any safer? I'd suggest most likely not. eg: Are they any safer from a lone mad gunman on a mission?

And if we start adding accidents into the picture from all these additional guns floating around, I'd suggest they might be less safe surely?

SymphonicX

25-Jul-2012, 10:21 PM

I have to agree with this. I personally don't take offense to observations made by people from other countries. I think that people from other countries can provide a wider perspective on our society because they aren't caught up in it. .

Thanks mate, that's nice to read. I agree and I think we analyse countries all the time here and in general as societies.

Christ we've all analysed, cristicised and deconstructed MANY other countries on this board but try to delve into the US and well...God forbid.

I'm glad you see it like you do. I fully agree - I celebrate that sort of communication about the UK - ask questions, make points, provide insights - it's all texture and adds to the richness of our understanding. Valuable stuff.

childofgilead

26-Jul-2012, 04:28 AM

:)
Yeah I'd be lying if I said a good 50% of everything I enjoy didn't come from the US too - bands like Dream Theater, Symphony X, Pantera...man I couldn't list the sheer number of artists that the US has produced that I enjoy...of course not forgetting a nod to Mr Romero's work :) It's because I respect America that I feel confident to say what I do really. I'd be the biggest hypocrite if I sat here slating the US in a prejudice manner, on a board based on American cinema.

But the rest of your post...it's completely chilling...it goes a long way to provide actual insights to this issue and I think pretty much sums up why this isn't about the guns themselves - and that of course protecting yourself seems only natural off the back of that.
-----
I've said time and time again how I hate the argument "guns don't kill people, people kill people" - I think I now understand why it gauls me so much.

Because we never talk about the "people" in that statement. In a way the statement is kinda true - it's just a shitty simplification of the wider picture. It gauls me because underneath that is a bigger problem and this statement admits it, yet dismisses it - it's a statement so egotistical, it thinks it's the end of the argument. (not that I'm saying ANYONE here has used this in this thread, whatsoever - I'm just generalising about the politicising of events such as thus.).

I'm a little confused..I don't know if you were saying that what I said made sense or were raking me over the coals for my beliefs..*shrug*..not a clue.

But I feel the way I do about firearms for many reasons..I've been on the receiving end of armed robberies twice while I worked at a convenience store. I wasn't allowed to be armed. And honestly, either time wouldn't have mattered, there wasn't enough time to react and the first perp ran out the door with nothing gained.

It scares me though. If either of them had simple murder on their minds, I'd be stone dead or would have some interesting scars. There was no inkling that something was going wrong, it just happened, *BAM*, then it was over.

In neither situation, would I have had the time to pull a sidearm before I had a bullet in my face.

On the same side of that coin, there have been two situations where I had my hand inside my jacket on my handgun coming in to my apartment after a nightshift and people were dealing on the steps outside. Police were called numerous times, they just ran inside. There was a shootout in the parking lot one night, a few cars got shot up, that's it.

I'm not embellishing, I'm not exaggerating. Criminals will use guns, knives, bats, whatever they need to to scare, intimidate or hurt someone to gain what they want. That mindset is what makes them a criminal, breaking a law.

I hate that I have to feel fear in my own home. I hate that I have to feel like at any moment, I can hear glass shattering in the living room and have to grab a flashlight and my 1911 out of my nightstand and investigate. I DON'T WANT TO DO THESE THINGS. But I have a responsibility to the woman I love to protect her, and I have a responsibility to protect myself. You can have my tv, but you won't have my life without a fight.

I'm not trying to sound like a fudd. I'm just giving my reasoning on why I have a firearm for defense.

Now, if you want to talk about a firearm for fun, I have several old military rifles and a few shotguns around for snake duty. I like to shoot at targets, it's like golf, you only compete against yourself.

-- -------- Post added at 11:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:22 PM ----------

I've bolded the important words in your sentence above.

You see, I believe that weapons shouldn't be available to just anyone and it's far too easy to buy the most ridiculous type of weaponry in the States at the moment. I think that this situation NEEDS to be tightened up.

Somebody who has exhibited the above traits and has been the subject of police action SHOULD NOT be allowed near weapons at all and if they possess them, they should be taken off of them.

Weapon's AREN'T available to just anyone. In my state, if you've ever been involuntarily held on a mental health screen, you are not eligible to own a handgun. Not..sure about a long gun. But again, that's an existing law that can be enforced. But when someone breaks a law, they're thrown into jail, probably for a year or so, 6 months on good behavior, let out on probation and can just buy a gun from a neighbor or steal one.

If the drug laws in this country seem too severe for you, the criminal and violent act laws in this country seem to lenient to ME.

krisvds

26-Jul-2012, 05:27 AM

Classy move, Bale (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/24/christian-bale-aurora-victims-shooting-dark-knight_n_1699662.html). :thumbsup:

Indeed; instead of staying in his ivory tower and lecturing politics and ethics he actually went down there and talked to/listened to the victims.
Very classy.

SymphonicX

26-Jul-2012, 11:47 AM

I'm a little confused..I don't know if you were saying that what I said made sense or were raking me over the coals for my beliefs..*shrug*..not a clue.

-- -------- Post added at 11:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:22 PM ----------

.

sorry bud

I did separate the two parts of my post with a few hyphens - the bottom part was just me thinking aloud - definitely not raking over anyone for their beliefs....

I went off on a tangent because your post got me thinking about that phrase...because what you said *did* include society in the assessment - something which I feel is sometimes lacking from the issue.

shootemindehead

26-Jul-2012, 05:04 PM

But I feel the way I do about firearms for many reasons..I've been on the receiving end of armed robberies twice while I worked at a convenience store. I wasn't allowed to be armed. And honestly, either time wouldn't have mattered, there wasn't enough time to react and the first perp ran out the door with nothing gained.

It scares me though. If either of them had simple murder on their minds, I'd be stone dead or would have some interesting scars. There was no inkling that something was going wrong, it just happened, *BAM*, then it was over.

You weren't allowed carry by the shop, I presume and probably with good reason. You'd be dead, as you have already pointed out. Trying to pull a gun on someone who's pointing a gun at you will end one way, 99% of the time. Most armed robbers want the money and a quick getaway. They don't want to add murder (or attempted murder) to the list.

That said, I've never been on the end of a gun, so I don't know what it feels like. I'm sure it isn't a delightful situation.

Weapon's AREN'T available to just anyone. In my state, if you've ever been involuntarily held on a mental health screen, you are not eligible to own a handgun. Not..sure about a long gun. But again, that's an existing law that can be enforced. But when someone breaks a law, they're thrown into jail, probably for a year or so, 6 months on good behavior, let out on probation and can just buy a gun from a neighbor or steal one.

If the drug laws in this country seem too severe for you, the criminal and violent act laws in this country seem to lenient to ME.

I don't think I mentioned "drug laws" being "too severe", but it's good that "not just anyone" can get hold of guns. However, I still believe that it's far, far too easy and people exhibiting abusive traits, like the guy you mentioned previously absolutely should not be allowed near them. The laws should be broader and tighter, to eliminate the very real threat that these people possess.

babomb

26-Jul-2012, 05:42 PM

But surely this is just people being scaremongered into buying guns? In reality do those guns actually make them any safer? I'd suggest most likely not. eg: Are they any safer from a lone mad gunman on a mission?

And if we start adding accidents into the picture from all these additional guns floating around, I'd suggest they might be less safe surely?That depends on how you choose to look at it. You could say it's fear mongering and you'd be right. But I could say that it's because people feel more secure by taking responsibility for their own well being, and I'd also be right. In order to get a CCW you have to take training courses. This reduces the possibility of accidents.
Also, an event like this polarizes people. So some people see an event like this and immediately take the view that guns should be abolished. Those aren't the people that go out and buy handguns and apply for CCW. The people who do that are pro-gun people already. So they're familiar with guns, and not highly intimidated by them. If you're afraid of guns you shouldn't be carrying one at all. That's how accidents happen. The more relaxed and at ease you are with guns the less likely you are to have an accident with one. If you learn to break it down and clean it, shoot it alot, keep it in a safe place, you become comfortable with it.
I don't think having more guns floating around makes people less safe. Most people I know own guns. And I don't know 1 person who's ever accidentally shot themself or anyone else. I've never been witness to an accidental discharge.
Personally, I'll take the risk to my security in exchange for the right to own or carry a gun. But I won't take the risk of expecting others to be responsible for my well being. Who could be more reliable to look after your well being than yourself? Cops? Screw that!!!!
Our rights are constantly being trampled on by those who are supposed to protect those rights and look after our well being. here in America, we can't trust our government or our police to keep us safe because in alot of cases they're the ones that we need protection from.
I don't know how things are over in the UK, but your cops probably aren't militarized shock troops like ours. America is a police state now.
Check out this article and video. Then tell me if you'd trust these people to be responsible for your life and well being.
http://boingboing.net/2011/11/10/police-beat-protesters-with-cl.html (http://http://boingboing.net/2011/11/10/police-beat-protesters-with-cl.html)
http://abcnews.go.com/US/occupy-protesters-beaten-pepper-sprayed/story?id=14990310

childofgilead

26-Jul-2012, 07:16 PM

Going to have to disagree with you there, shoot..it's been widely recognized, even by our Supreme Court, that the wording of the second amendment is a personal right. If the framers intended it to mean a militia, they wouldn't have said "the right of the PEOPLE"..it's a personal right, was recognized as such by the Supreme Court and that led to the laws being overturned in Washington D.C.

As for the reasons behind not allowing us to carry, I happen to know them and will tell you flat out. It was about money, their rates would have skyrocketed if even one person was carrying, not to mention the fact that we would have been required to report it which is uh, kinda illegal. It just wasn't worth the hassle to me, it was "against the rules", so I didn't do it. As I said, both times wouldn't have mattered if I'd had a gun, it was over too quick.

But, if they'd WANTED me dead, I'd BE dead. No doubts there either. And there are situations that I've been in that I've been GLAD I carry, yet I've never had to even pull it out. Weird huh?

As for the asshole who killed his family, believe me, we did what we could, but when a wife won't say that she's afraid of her husband or that he's abusive, the police can't do jack. That's the law, like it or not. I look back and wish there was something else I could have done, but honestly, I know that we did what we could. If they'd left in the middle of the night while he was at work, he would have hunted them down. This is going to set people off..but sometimes, when there's a rabid dog in the street, he needs to be put down. This man was a rabid dog.

shootemindehead

26-Jul-2012, 08:21 PM

As for the asshole who killed his family, believe me, we did what we could, but when a wife won't say that she's afraid of her husband or that he's abusive, the police can't do jack. That's the law, like it or not. I look back and wish there was something else I could have done, but honestly, I know that we did what we could. If they'd left in the middle of the night while he was at work, he would have hunted them down. This is going to set people off..but sometimes, when there's a rabid dog in the street, he needs to be put down. This man was a rabid dog.

But, if the police aren't able to take the guns off of people like the guy you mentioned, then the wife isn't really going to open her mouth is she? That's the problem.

In my mind, her rights not to be blown away supercedes his right to own guns.

The regulations just have to be put in place to support that and as long as those in power are afraid to tackle it, then these types of murders and massacres will happen and will happen with increasing regularity.

There's no two ways about it.

It comes down to this...stricter regulations on gun ownership, or massacres. If America doesn't care (or care enough) about these massacres, to put in place tighter controls on their ability to get/retain guns, well then that's their own problem and they can save the tears and candlelight vigils.

You have to be prepared to remedy the issue, or put up with the consequences.

Sammich

26-Jul-2012, 09:25 PM

shootemindehead

26-Jul-2012, 09:49 PM

The incident in the youtube video happened on July 18th in central Florida. Yet the media ignores the numerous times per year that firearms are successfully used in self-defense. It has been shown that just displaying a firearm has stopped many crimes. If just ONE of many people in the theater who said the gunman was standing over them had a gun, he would have been stopped.

I don't think that would have been the case. More than likely there would have been more people injured with two or more people involved in a firefight...in a darkened theatre...with panicing people running for their lives.

Besides, if someone did draw their pop gun, they would lack the training to deal with such a confused situation and Holmes was armed with this...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/Stag2wi_.jpg/300px-Stag2wi_.jpg

which can do this...

H-qXR42D8_E

...and covered from head to toe in kevlar body armour.

babomb

26-Jul-2012, 10:55 PM

It comes down to this...stricter regulations on gun ownership, or massacres. If America doesn't care (or care enough) about these massacres, to put in place tighter controls on their ability to get/retain guns, well then that's their own problem and they can save the tears and candlelight vigils.

You have to be prepared to remedy the issue, or put up with the consequences. Consider for a minute that Americans have owned guns since the conception of the country. But these massacres never used to happen at all, and even back in the 1920's-1980's gun laws were less restrictive than they are now. But there were still no massacres. These shootings are a new phenomenon. Tighter gun laws are a band aid fix. There's something within our society that makes people do this other than just access to guns. Whatever that is, it needs to be identified and addressed.
I personally think that violence in films and videogames plays a HUGE role. There are a shitload of kids that have no parental guidance. They learn about the world and society through TV and games. So they grow up with a distorted sense of reality. When you grow up watching films where people can outrun bullets and get away with unimaginable crimes and there's nobody there to explain to you at an early age that it's not the way things really work, it distorts your whole perspective on things.
But nobody wants to tackle that one either. And there IS a correlation between the amount of violence in films and TV from decades ago and the fact that back then these types of shootings didn't happen.
This correlation speaks for itself. And it seems a bit hypocritical to say that we can allow children to be exposed to extremely violent images, but we can't allow adults to own semi-automatic rifles. It's an absolute cop out. It's saying that we're gonna ignore or avoid the real problem, but focus all our efforts to remedy that problem we're avoiding on the instruments used to commit that violence that we allow children to be exposed to in large doses.
It's like saying that drunk driving is a huge problem and results in massive deaths every year. But rather than address the issue of alcohol addiction we're gonna make it more difficult for people to own motor vehicles.

-- -------- Post added at 04:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:04 PM ----------

I don't think that would have been the case. More than likely there would have been more people injured with two or more people involved in a firefight...in a darkened theatre...with panicing people running for their lives.

Besides, if someone did draw their pop gun, they would lack the training to deal with such a confused situation and Holmes was armed with this...

...and covered from head to toe in kevlar body armour. How would the police have stopped him if they'd been there when it happened? They'd shoot him. All it would've taken was 1 person who had a sidearm and some training. You can take courses that teach you how to handle those kinds of situations. There were also vets in that theater.
His AR also jammed on him so he went to his shotgun.
And kevlar body armor doesn't stop high powered rifle rounds. You need ceramic plates to stop them. Which I bet he didn't have. Most people think that a simple ballistic vest is bullet proof but it only stops rounds with lower muzzle energy., which he probably didn't know. The shooter also didn't have training so if someone were shooting back he probably wouldn't know what to do. All it would take is someone firing at him, and he'd have to take cover. This would've bought everyone enough time to get out of the theater and time for cops to get there. Besides, bullets don't just bounce off body armor even with ceramic plates. It's like getting hit with a sledgehammer when a bullet hits body armor. It would've knocked the wind out of him, buying even more time.
A weapon light on a pistol would also give an advantage, especially in a dark theater because it would blind him for a moment. Buying more time.

Sammich

26-Jul-2012, 11:07 PM

I don't think that would have been the case. More than likely there would have been more people injured with two or more people involved in a firefight...in a darkened theatre...with panicing people running for their lives.

Besides, if someone did draw their pop gun, they would lack the training to deal with such a confused situation and Holmes was armed with this...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/Stag2wi_.jpg/300px-Stag2wi_.jpg

which can do this...

H-qXR42D8_E

...and covered from head to toe in kevlar body armour.

You are trying to equate that an experienced shooter shooting stationary at a static target in the open is the same thing as what happened? Amazing. Why not dig up some movies and show people getting thrown through the air from bullet impacts while you are at it.

If he was using the first ar15 pictured he would have never even hit anyone. Scopes are meant for shooting at a distance and horrible close range. But OOOOOH a Harris bipod and vertical foregrip makes the gun even more deadly. NOT.

As for kevlar body armor, the firearms ignorant seem to think it makes you completely impervious to bullet impacts. There is a thing called blunt force trauma that occurs to the person wearing armor and it isn't just a bee sting. As for Holmes, I keep hearing ballistic vest and ballistic leggings from the usualy wrong sensationalist talking heads in the media. Until I actually hear what brand and NIJ rating the armor is, the guy was just probably wearing a tactical vest and 511 pants.

-- -------- Post added at 10:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:58 PM ----------

[/COLOR] How would the police have stopped him if they'd been there when it happened? They'd shoot him. All it would've taken was 1 person who had a sidearm and some training. You can take courses that teach you how to handle those kinds of situations. There were also vets in that theater.

You are correct. I worked at a shooting range for 6 years and the concealed weapon holders were almost always members and shot there regularly. There were a significantly smaller amount of police members and the only time we had lots of law enforcement show up was right before they had yearly qualifications. It isn't very comforting when you see how bad some of the cops really are at shooting.

shootemindehead

27-Jul-2012, 12:02 AM

Tighter gun laws are a band aid fix. There's something within our society that makes people do this other than just access to guns. Whatever that is, it needs to be identified and addressed.

I agree 100% BB and have said so. However, until there is a situation whereby healthcare isn't so prohibitive, then other measures need to be looked at and tightening access to tools designed to kill can and should be looked at.

There's NO excuse otherwise.

I understand America's history with the gun and the laws that are available for them. But America also had a history of slavery and laws enacted to sanction those rights too.

Times change, laws change.

I personally think that violence in films and videogames plays a HUGE role. There are a shitload of kids that have no parental guidance. They learn about the world and society through TV and games. So they grow up with a distorted sense of reality. When you grow up watching films where people can outrun bullets and get away with unimaginable crimes and there's nobody there to explain to you at an early age that it's not the way things really work, it distorts your whole perspective on things.

If that's the case, then why isn't Ireland a hotbed of gun massacre. We watch the same films as the US. We play the same games too.

But we can't walk off the street and but an AR15, TEC 9 or AK47 and blow a load of people away when we get pissed off.

No, games and movies is not the cause and censorship is also not a solution. That's been tried and today, it would require a worldwide effort to deny people access to violent films and video games.

That's the harder route. MUCH harder.

How would the police have stopped him if they'd been there when it happened?

You're missing my point. They remedy the situation BEFORE the need to shoot him. They take away his ability to shoot his family.

If someone is abusive and has shown violent tendencies in the past (and i'm not just talking about the odd argument or even slap), I believe they have given up their right to access to firearms. Plain and simple. Going whoops, after the fact is simply no good.

And kevlar body armor doesn't stop high powered rifle rounds.

So, what are you suggesting here? That eveybody brings an M16 to the cinema? Down the local shop?

A wider proliferation of arms is certainly not the answer to Americas gun problems.

childofgilead

27-Jul-2012, 12:03 AM

Oof..the subject of police practicing..talk about scary!

I had to help an officer (I went to school with him..he's not exactly what I would have thought as police material) unjam his Smith & Wesson after a magazine failed to feed the round properly. I asked him when he'd last cleaned and lubed it, and he said when it was issued. Eleven months previous.

I also worked with him on his trigger pull. What's wrong with this picture?

shootemindehead

27-Jul-2012, 12:10 AM

You are trying to equate that an experienced shooter shooting stationary at a static target in the open is the same thing as what happened?

No, I am illustrating that the AR15, despite its "semi-auto" nomenclature is capable of an extremely rapid rate of fire.

-- -------- Post added at 12:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:06 AM ----------

Oof..the subject of police practicing..talk about scary!

I had to help an officer (I went to school with him..he's not exactly what I would have thought as police material) unjam his Smith & Wesson after a magazine failed to feed the round properly. I asked him when he'd last cleaned and lubed it, and he said when it was issued. Eleven months previous.

I also worked with him on his trigger pull. What's wrong with this picture?

Perhaps he's just not as obsessed with firearms that some other American citizens are?

It's an aquired skill.

childofgilead

27-Jul-2012, 01:04 AM

But it's kind of an important skill for someone who is required to carry a firearm and might be in a situation to have to use it.

Also, every semi auto rifle is capable of extremely rapid fire.

Sammich

27-Jul-2012, 01:46 AM

No, I am illustrating that the AR15, despite its "semi-auto" nomenclature is capable of an extremely rapid rate of fire.[COLOR="Silver"]

No you are demonstrating what an experienced AR15 shooter can do IF he has fast enough trigger finger. It is like showing a video of Tiger Woods or Kobe Bryant and saying "Look at how easy it is for anyone to golf or play basketball". Have you ever shot a real AR15 much less even held one? People that get all of their firearms information from watching movies or from what is said on the news are deluded self-appointed experts.

Holmes was not an experienced shooter and had just recently bought the guns. He was even refused membership at a shooting range. The only reason he was able to shoot so many people was that he had picked an area where he was assured there would be no resistance as the theater had a no firearms policy. He couldn't pull off his mass shooting spree at University of Colorado because the state supreme court had just ruled this march that concealed weapon holders could carry their handguns on campus.

Like I said I have 6 years experience working at a shooting range and many more years in gunsmithing and reloading of ammunition, so I base my information from first hand knowledge. I have seen many armchair warriors come in thinking that shooting a real gun is like playing a video game and found out quickly it is not.

You just don't get it about the cops do you? They are the ones that the government entrusts over citizens to have firearms yet many of them are not proficient in their own weapons and it just doesn't stop there. There are numerous court decisions that state the police have NO LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY to protect citizens.

Here are only a few:

"Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals." - California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846

"fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.”" - Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)

“police officers have no affirmative statutory duty to do anything.” - Souza v. City of Antioch, 62 California Reporter, 2d 909, 916 (Cal. App. 1997)

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local law-enforcement had no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the laws. - South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (How.) 396, 15 L.Ed.433 (1856)

There is no merit to petitioner's contention that the State's knowledge of his danger and expressions of willingness to protect him against that danger established a "special relationship" giving rise to an affirmative constitutional duty to protect. - DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 109 S.Ct. 998, 1989 (1989)

There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. - Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982)

The Court of Appeal held that the police department and its employees enjoyed absolute immunity for failure to provide sufficient police protection. - Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal.App.3d 6, 120 Cal.Rptr. 5 (1975)

The Supreme Court held that: (1) the mere fact that the officers had previously recognized the assailant from a distance as a potential assailant because of his resemblance to a person suspected of perpetrating a prior assault did not establish a "special relationship" between officers and assailant under which a duty would be imposed on officers to control assailant's conduct; (2) factors consisting of officer's prior recognition of assailant as likely perpetrator of previous assault and officer's surveillance of assailant in laundromat in which victim was present did not give rise to special relationship between officers and victim so as to impose duty on officers to protect victim from assailant; and (3) victim could not maintain cause of action for intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, in view of fact that it was not alleged that officers failed to act for the purpose of causing emotional injury, and that in the absence of such an intent to injure, officer's inaction was not extreme or outrageous conduct. - Davidson v. City of Westminister, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252 (1982)

The victims of the L.A. riots tried to sue the LAPD for pulling out of the areas where looting and arson was taking place in clear view, but their cases where all dismissed because once again the courts ruled THE POLICE HAVE NO LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT THE CITIZENS.

So in other words the only real duty of police are revenue collections (issuing tickets) and investigating crimes after the fact. That leaves the invidual responsible for his own protection.

krisvds

27-Jul-2012, 06:11 AM

LouCipherr

27-Jul-2012, 02:31 PM

Ok, focusing back on Holmes, I have a serious question here. I heard someone else mention this, so I pasted the two pictures together for a comparison (sorry about the size, but it helps to compare features).

Take a really close look...

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/HOLMESCOMPARISON.jpg

1) the noses are completely different. It's possible he may have had a nose job at some point, but the difference is pretty remarkable.
2) picture on the left - no lazy eye. Picture on the right? lazy eye.
3) eye colors are different (of course, that could be due to difference exposures during the photos, but it's a big difference)
4) ears are different
5) chin is more chiseled on the picture on the left
6) pic on the left, his mouth has an 'upswing' on the edges, picture on the right does not have that. They're also different sizes.
7) the eyes and the way they're set in the skull look different in each pic

So, are these two really the same person? I'm not sure, but it's interesting none the less when you compare the photos.

*puts on tinfoil hat and waits for the "you're crazy" comments*

:D

bassman

27-Jul-2012, 03:25 PM

Picture on left: Smiling. Picture on the right: Not smiling.

.....

Neil

27-Jul-2012, 03:52 PM

$hit, even the hair's a different colour!!!

babomb

27-Jul-2012, 06:27 PM

It is quite the society where so many people feel the need to carry firearms to say, the theatre, schools, the supermarket, ... just to feel (or even be?) safe.

To me the point is not if people should be allowed to possess an arsenal but rather why they feel there is a necessity to do so.
The problem is not responsible people nor their freedom, the problem is much broader than that; what happened to bring people to the point where they cant go out and buy a beer or see a film without carrying a weapon. Is the threat that real, the police that inept? Yes and no. Because we live in an extremely violent society where people shoot up schools and theaters, strip naked and eat other peoples faces, blow up buildings with planes. We have a government that lies to us constantly, continually erodes our liberties and steals from the poor to give to the rich, our cops beat and pepper spray people exercising their right to assemble, our media uses fear as a method of mind control, and our youth are desensitized to violence and spoiled rotten, everyone is either on prescription drugs or illicit street drugs, we have racism on both sides of the spectrum, everyone is broke and can't afford health care. That's just the tip of the iceburg too.

Shouldn't the whole debate be less about the carrying of firearms and more about what society you want to 'build' and how to get there? Yeah. it is about that. Our leaders ARE building the society they want, and they're getting there by trampling all over us. They could give a shit less about the citizens in this country. When we try to effect change, they squash our efforts with new laws, disinformation, and jack boot shock troops. And now they'll be coming after our last line of defense.
So what do you think we should do? We've been trying peaceful assembly, but the shock troops come in and turn it into a riot and then blame us for it. They're successfully using disinformation to make sure that any efforts to make the right changes are not supported by the majority of the people. We're a country divided within. And it's only gonna get worse.

Something that I don't think people see or at least don't acknowledge, is that America is collapsing in on itself in every way. You guys that aren't from here are witnessing the death of America. You just don't realize it yet. Those of us that are from here are experiencing it. This is our reality. we wake up everyday into this shitstorm, forced to watch our country dissolve into something that is unrecognizable right before our eyes. You guys are just spectators. And I don't mean that your views aren't valuable. But you're not living this. You don't have to experience how it feels to see your country dying in front of you and deal with the feeling that there's nothing you can do about it.
This is no exaggeration either. So many Americans just refuse to see it so they'll disagree. But they know in their hearts that this is true.

-- -------- Post added at 12:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:13 AM ----------

For anyone interested, here's the 911 audio from the theater---->
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZaBmSq89S4

LouCipherr

27-Jul-2012, 06:42 PM

Picture on left: Smiling. Picture on the right: Not smiling.

.....

$hit, even the hair's a different colour!!!

Wait for it.... waaaait for it....

<pause>

Nope. Not funny.

bassman

27-Jul-2012, 07:04 PM

Wait for it.... waaaait for it....

<pause>

Nope. Not funny.

I wasn't trying to be funny, actually. I'm serious when I say that the minor differences you see are because he's smiling in one and not the other. Everything except the eye color, which you pretty much answered yourself.

It's the same person.

LouCipherr

27-Jul-2012, 07:20 PM

I'm serious when I say that the minor differences you see are because he's smiling in one and not the other. Everything except the eye color, which you pretty much answered yourself.

It's the same person.

So what you're saying is, smiling makes your nose bigger? Are you serious dude? :lol:

Also, take a look at this:

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_21126462/real-life-shooting-imitates-training-exercise-at-parker

Same day, same scenario. Coincidence?

bassman

27-Jul-2012, 07:37 PM

So what you're saying is, smiling makes your nose bigger? Are you serious dude? :lol:

Maybe not for everyone, but it's certainly possible for his nose to flare when he smiles. Mine does. Just about everything you've listed are things that slightly change according to what expression the face is making. Play in a mirror for a minute and note the differences....

It's the same guy. Put your tinfoil hat back on and go back to your bomb shelter.

LouCipherr

27-Jul-2012, 08:00 PM

Maybe not for everyone, but it's certainly possible for his nose to flare when he smiles. Mine does. Just about everything you've listed are things that slightly change according to what expression the face is making.

:lol:

That's not a "nostril flare" bass. It's physically larger the entire length of his nose. When your nostrils flare (whether it be from laughing, smiling, or a grimace), the openings of the nostrils will get bigger, but the cartilage the entire length of your nose doesn't suddenly get larger.

And leave my tinfoil hat alone. I've been wearing it so long it fits perfectly now. :p

babomb

27-Jul-2012, 08:15 PM

So what you're saying is, smiling makes your nose bigger? Are you serious dude? :lol:

Also, take a look at this:

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_21126462/real-life-shooting-imitates-training-exercise-at-parker

Same day, same scenario. Coincidence?
Isn't that just the strangest coincidence that when these events happen, 9/11, the subway attack in the UK, this theater shooting, that they just happen to be doing identical simulations at the time? I don't know what it means, but it's awfully coincidental!

BTW, the 2nd part of the theater shooting audio is up:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4bGBEYBSdY&feature=share

LouCipherr

27-Jul-2012, 08:26 PM

Isn't that just the strangest coincidence that when these events happen, 9/11, the subway attack in the UK, this theater shooting, that they just happen to be doing identical simulations at the time? I don't know what it means, but it's awfully coincidental!

Why, yes it is! Thank you, babomb. I was going to point those out too with links, but figured it would just be pushed aside and blamed on me wearing my tinfoil hat (which looks good on me, btw.. :lol:)

Let's also not forget that one day before the Haiti earthquake, the military just happened to be performing exercises based on what? Oh yeah, Haiti suffering an enormous natural disaster:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17122 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17122)

http://noliesradio.org/archives/11301 (http://noliesradio.org/archives/11301)

If these things are indeed coincidence, I think we need to redefine the term.

bassman

27-Jul-2012, 09:05 PM

That's not a "nostril flare" bass. It's physically larger the entire length of his nose. When your nostrils flare (whether it be from laughing, smiling, or a grimace), the openings of the nostrils will get bigger, but the cartilage the entire length of your nose doesn't suddenly get larger.

The nostrils are the only thing different about his nose. Whatever difference it is that you think you're seeing, is probably down to realistic factors such as angles, lighting, expression, quality, etc. Not a friggin conspiracy. Give me a break, man. I would expect this from some of these members here, but not you. Don't join 'em Lou!!! :p

Sammich

27-Jul-2012, 09:16 PM

Another incident that the national news won't cover because it doesn't support their hysterical animist anti-gun agenda.

Gun carrying man ends stabbing spree at Salt Lake grocery store (http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/bios/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx)

SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) - A citizen with a gun stopped a knife wielding man as he began stabbing people Thursday evening at the downtown Salt Lake City Smith's store.

Police say the suspect purchased a knife inside the store and then turned it into a weapon. Smith's employee Dorothy Espinoza says, "He pulled it out and stood outside the Smiths in the foyer. And just started stabbing people and yelling you killed my people. You killed my people."

Espinoza says, the knife wielding man seriously injured two people. "There is blood all over. One got stabbed in the stomach and got stabbed in the head and held his hands and got stabbed all over the arms."

Then, before the suspect could find another victim - a citizen with a gun stopped the madness. "A guy pulled gun on him and told him to drop his weapon or he would shoot him. So, he dropped his weapon and the people from Smith's grabbed him."

babomb

27-Jul-2012, 11:47 PM

The nostrils are the only thing different about his nose. Whatever difference it is that you think you're seeing, is probably down to realistic factors such as angles, lighting, expression, quality, etc. Not a friggin conspiracy. Give me a break, man. I would expect this from some of these members here, but not you. Don't join 'em Lou!!! :p I'm not convinced that these are 2 different guys, but it wouldn't come as a shock if that turned out to be the case. But if you think that everything with this shooting/shooter is on the level you're either not paying close enough attention or just not even willing to consider anything but the official explanation.
Too much of this incident doesn't add up.
There's documentation to prove that Project:MKUltra was indeed a real project by America and canada dating back to the 50's. Not to mention that both governments freely admit that it was a real project. Over 30 universities were involved in research and testing on the project. It's a fact that these tests were performed on people without their knowledge and consent . And not just those involved in the project, they performed these tests on citizens.
Among the tests performed were things like torture, hypnosis, administering an assortment of drugs for the purpose of inducing amnesia.

From wikipedia:
One 1955 MKUltra document gives an indication of the size and range of the effort; this document refers to the study of an assortment of mind-altering substances described as follows:[27]
Substances which will promote illogical thinking and impulsiveness to the point where the recipient would be discredited in public.
Substances which increase the efficiency of mentation and perception.
Materials which will cause the victim to age faster/slower in maturity.
Materials which will promote the intoxicating effect of alcohol.
Materials which will produce the signs and symptoms of recognized diseases in a reversible way so that they may be used for malingering, etc.
Materials will cause temporary/permanent brain damage and loss of memory.
Substances which will enhance the ability of individuals to withstand privation, torture and coercion during interrogation and so-called "brain-washing".
Materials and physical methods which will produce amnesia for events preceding and during their use.
Physical methods of producing shock and confusion over extended periods of time and capable of surreptitious use.
Substances which produce physical disablement such as paralysis of the legs, acute anemia, etc.
Substances which will produce a chemical that can cause blisters.
Substances which alter personality structure in such a way that the tendency of the recipient to become dependent upon another person is enhanced.
A material which will cause mental confusion of such a type that the individual under its influence will find it difficult to maintain a fabrication under questioning.
Substances which will lower the ambition and general working efficiency of men when administered in undetectable amounts.
Substances which promote weakness or distortion of the eyesight or hearing faculties, preferably without permanent effects.
A knockout pill which can surreptitiously be administered in drinks, food, cigarettes, as an aerosol, etc., which will be safe to use, provide a maximum of amnesia, and be suitable for use by agent types on an ad hoc basis.
A material which can be surreptitiously administered by the above routes and which in very small amounts will make it impossible for a person to perform physical activity.

James Holmes is claiming that he has no memory of the shooting. In the video of him in the court room he looks like he's drugged up big time.

Although the CIA insists that MKUltra-type experiments have been abandoned, many CIA observers say there is little reason to believe it does not continue today under a different set of acronyms.[46] 14-year CIA veteran Victor Marchetti has stated in various interviews that the CIA routinely conducts disinformation campaigns and that CIA mind control research continued. In a 1977 interview, Marchetti specifically called the CIA claim that MKUltra was abandoned a "cover story"
If you're one of those people who automatically dismisses anything that even resembles a conspiracy, then the world is a much bigger and more dangerous place than you have the ability to comprehend.
You can't take anything at face value anymore. You have to question everything. If you don't question everything you put yourself in a very precarious and vulnerable position.
http://img.chan4chan.com/img/2010-09-11/1284214560166.jpg

AcesandEights

28-Jul-2012, 12:15 AM

If you're one of those people who automatically dismisses anything that even resembles a conspiracy, then the world is a much bigger and more dangerous place than you have the ability to comprehend.

Yeah, but when people only ever see conspiracies they have their own set of problems. Events just happened, information is still unfolding and people are posting (not here, but on some of the media people have linked to) with a whole set of overblown theories that they seem to be certain are the truth. That's paranoia.

Sammich

28-Jul-2012, 01:33 AM

This is from Ben Swann an investigative reporter at an independently owned FOX affiliate in Cincinnati. He does stories that the corporate controlled media refuses to touch and is very fair in his reporting.

Reality Check: Unanswered Questions About Colorado Theater Massacre
1jeW_-Kq7vA

babomb

28-Jul-2012, 02:42 AM

I understand America's history with the gun and the laws that are available for them. But America also had a history of slavery and laws enacted to sanction those rights too.

Times change, laws change. There's nothing in the bill of rights that states that americans have the "right to keep slaves" though. Which is the issue at hand when it comes to gun rights. I can't help but notice that when it comes to these rights everyone vehemently protects the 1st amm of free speech, but when it comes to the 2nd amm people feel as if we can do without that one. Or that when the bill of rights was drafted assault rifles didn't exist, and if the founding fathers could see things today that they too would agree.. No. not at all.
When you start picking and choosing which rights from the BOR should be upheld and which ones shouldn't you're putting every single right contained in the document at risk. The idea behind the 2nd amm is to give the people the means to protect all the other rights contained in that document. And the ability to form militias made up of the people to protect against tyranny and totalitarianism. There's a reason that it's the 2nd amm.
The assault rifle is the modern musket. Since the 2nd amm isn't about hunting for food or sport, if you narrowed it down to mean only hunting or sport firearms and not assault rifles, then there's no difference between completely abolishing the 2nd amm. The people can't resist against a well equipped military force using hunting rifles and shotguns, when the opposition DOES have assault rifles. That's the idea behind the 2nd amm, to level the playing field. Otherwise there's no checks and balances to stop those in power from exerting total control over the populace. So IMO, the 2nd amm applies especially to assault rifles.
And it makes no difference whatsoever that anti-gun people think that the people have no chance of winning such a war. Are we supposed to say "yeah, you're right. that is a silly idea. so we can just abolish the 2nd amm since it's intentions are no longer practical"?
I'm not too familiar with the constitution you guys have, but do you guys pick and choose what rights you feel are worth upholding and which ones aren't? I would hope not.
But then again, you guys probably don't have a government that doesn't give a flying fuck about it's people either. Our constitution states in very clear language that it's the responsibility of the people to uphold the constitution and BOR.
I feel like some of you guys just totally disregard all the issues regarding our bill of rights and think that we as americans are just using that as an excuse to keep our guns. And I don't understand where you're coming from in that regard.

If that's the case, then why isn't Ireland a hotbed of gun massacre. We watch the same films as the US. We play the same games too.

But we can't walk off the street and but an AR15, TEC 9 or AK47 and blow a load of people away when we get pissed off.

No, games and movies is not the cause and censorship is also not a solution. That's been tried and today, it would require a worldwide effort to deny people access to violent films and video games. I never said it was THE cause. I also said that the reason it plays a big role, IMO, is because parents are using films and games as babysitters. And aren't taking an active role in limiting kids exposure to it. Kids are being raised by the media because parents are too busy to do it themselves. So they see things in films and games that appeals to them and they don't have anything telling them that these things aren't acceptable. The line between fantasy and reality are being totally erased because of a long list of societal ills. So just access to violent films and games is not THE cause, just like access to firearms is not THE cause. So why then is restricting access to firearms THE solution, but restricting access to violent films and games is not? Because it's easier? That's my point entirely! And it's why this is such a problem here in the 1st place. Because so many people are willing to take the easy way out instead of actually solving the problem. Even if guns were abolished next year or 20 years from now, that doesn't solve the underlying problem behind this. So what would end up happening would be that after getting rid of guns many people would just consider the problem remedied and move on. But that underlying problem would then begin to manifest itself in other ways. So why give up a fundamental right as a quick half ass solution?
It will also take a worldwide effort to deny people access to assault rifles. Very few assault rifles are designed and manufactured in the US. The most common assault rifle, the AK-47 and it's variants are manufactured mostly in eastern European countries and Asia. Just having a law banning them in no way means that they'll be eradicated from the country. This will propose other problems. They won't be regulated, won't have registered serial numbers, there will be no records of transfer on them, and they'll be much cheaper because they're cheaper to make. There will also be no reason for them to be restricted to semi-auto because they're illegal either way. Your standard AK and most variants are manufactured as select fire weapons, complete with bayonet lug and collapsible stock.

Originally Posted by shootemindehead
I don't think that would have been the case. More than likely there would have been more people injured with two or more people involved in a firefight...in a darkened theatre...with panicing people running for their lives.

Besides, if someone did draw their pop gun, they would lack the training to deal with such a confused situation and Holmes was armed with this...

...and covered from head to toe in kevlar body armour. If you listen to the audio clips I posted, the cops give a description of the suspect more than once, and it was in fact only a tactical vest. Not a ballistic vest like everyone is claiming. A .22 will go through a tactical vest. So if there was an armed citizen in that theater 1 or 2 shots with a 9mm would've ended the rampage.
I still lean toward the idea that this guy had help in organizing this massacre. In almost all other mass shootings the shooter has some sort of connection with the location and the victims. This was just totally random. Similar to the DC sniper. Who just happened to be a Gulf War vet with an elite unit. That itself throws up alot of red flags IMO.

bassman

28-Jul-2012, 02:53 AM

If you're one of those people who automatically dismisses anything that even resembles a conspiracy, then the world is a much bigger and more dangerous place than you have the ability to comprehend.
You can't take anything at face value anymore. You have to question everything. If you don't question everything you put yourself in a very precarious and vulnerable position.

No, not everything can be taken at face value. I agree with you on that. But as Aces mentioned before me, when you start applying crazy conspiracy theories to everything, even the most simple of events such as this shooting,...well....then you're just being paranoid.

If that's the case, it's time to peel off from the computer and work your way into the real world....

shootemindehead

28-Jul-2012, 03:35 AM

There's nothing in the bill of rights that states that americans have the "right to keep slaves" though.

Perhaps, but the point remains. White people had the "right" to own slaves in the States, until such a time that it was altered.

Which is the issue at hand when it comes to gun rights. I can't help but notice that when it comes to these rights everyone vehemently protects the 1st amm of free speech, but when it comes to the 2nd amm people feel as if we can do without that one.

I cannot recall anyone suggesting this. The call is for tighter regulations, which is still withing the spirit of the actual document. "A well regulated militia..."

Clearly the regulations which are at play at the moment aren't working, or at least aren't working enough to help prevent these type of massacres and it comes down to a matter of regulation, not banning, as some people would like to suggest. Most people who would agree with tighter regulation on guns don't want to see banning. They want to see guns not falling into the hands of those who would use them for nefarious purposes. The "Yall ain'tn takin ur gunnns!!!" approach is not helpful in any situation and comes across as completely careless and oblivious to incidents like these.

But then again, you guys probably don't have a government that doesn't give a flying fuck about it's people either.

I wouldn't be so quick to draw that conclusion. Unfortuanately, our political system (while not as farcical as America's) is riddled with corruption, cronyism and self interest. Our own people have been entrenched in bullshit party politics, that thankfully has been changing over the last few years.

In addition, I haven't the time to go into a debate on films etc. But, I agree, people of a certain age SHOULD be restricted from viewing certain material. But banning movies? (not that I'm saying that you are suggesting this). That's nonsense and it's been tried in Europe aleady with little success.

There is no single issue regarding these type of massacres at play. There's a combination. But, it seems to me that there just isn't enough people who actually give a damn about kids getting blown away to do anything about it and until that happens, these incidents will continue to occur. It's a combination of a lack of substantial healthcare that isn't financially prohibitive, America's gun fetish, the ridiculously easy access to weaponry and other societal issues (like an over-inflated sense of entitlement) that allows these middle class white guys to carry out their deeds.

babomb

28-Jul-2012, 06:46 PM

Perhaps, but the point remains. White people had the "right" to own slaves in the States, until such a time that it was altered.
Nobody in America at this point had anything to do with that. And average American citizens didn't have slaves. Only the Aristocratic elite had slaves. And they still do. They turned the people at large into slaves.
I don't understand what you're trying to infer here? That the 2nd amm somehow violates civil rights? And/or that some of what Americans claim to be "rights" are not or should not be considered rights? Or are you calling out white people in America for being some sort of evil race that subjects other races and nations to it's violent and war obsessed ways?
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're NOT saying any of that, and not respond according to it. But I'd like you to be honest and tell me if that's what you're saying or not.

I am in no way opposed to putting a regulation on assault rifles(or any firearms for that matter) where someone that has a history of mental illness or abuse is no longer eligible to own or purchase them. That's common sense, and it will also go a long way to stop people who seek to further limit firearm ownership from limiting them to the point where responsible law abiding people are at risk. Convicted felons can't own guns. And that isn't a big deal to me or pretty much anyone else who's against stricter gun laws. They shouldn't have them. Neither should mentally unstable people. The question is what constitutes mental illness? A serious mental illness such as Bi-polar disorder or Schizophrenia? I couldn't and wouldn't argue against something like that. However, if that were extended to include anyone who has ever had any sort of therapy, that I wouldn't support because it could be extended to apply to anyone. Which is the major concern. That what starts out as a logical measure ends up going way farther than it should..

Doctors push drugs, so if you go see one they're gonna diagnose you with something. Not because you definitely have a real disorder, but because it's a business and they want you to keep coming back and paying for office visits and keep filling your prescription because doctors own pharmaceutical stock. This is a symptom of the perversion of capitalism that has become the American way. And this is why when it comes to law and politics, nothing is ever as simple as it seems.
My younger brother was diagnosed as a child with Tourettes Syndrome[sp] and medicated for it. He displayed none of the symptoms, and it wasn't until High School that the diagnosis was reversed and he was taken off the meds. It was determined that he never had TS at all, all he had was a minor learning disorder. And this was a specialist that diagnosed him with it to start with. Things like this happen all the time here. I'm not saying it would apply to tourrettes, just showing how inept and self serving doctors can be.

So what happens when a law goes into effect that stops people with mental illness from owning guns and people are still constantly being improperly diagnosed because of policy?

There are people within our government who feel threatened by the 2nd amm. And they will capitalize on anything they can. This is the basis of our concern regarding gun laws. Nobody will dispute the *idea* that mentally ill and abusive people shouldn't have guns. Putting that into effect in a way that achieves it's goal but doesn't restrict the rights of law abiding citizens is the challenge. Especially when the tendency is for the goal of the law to be an absolute priority, and the rights infringement is seen as an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence.
Everytime rights are stepped on it comes in the guise or form of best intention.

Sammich

28-Jul-2012, 08:33 PM

There are people within our government who would like nothing more than to see the 2nd amm totally abolished. And they will capitalize on new laws to push that agenda. This is the basis of our concern regarding gun laws. Nobody will dispute the *idea* that mentally ill and abusive people shouldn't have guns. Putting that into effect in a way that achieves it's goal but doesn't restrict the rights of law abiding citizens is the challenge. Especially when the tendency is for the goal of the law to be an absolute priority, and the rights infringement is seen as an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence.

I have been in the "gun culture" for a long time and have seen all types of schemes by those in the medical/psychiatric field using their positions to push a political agenda of banning guns. Everything from shrinks wanting to define as a mental illness someone who merely wanted to own guns to one doctor trying to argue that firearms are a pathogen and controlling of guns should fall under the jurisdiction of federal health agencies like the CDC. All in it just came down to quacks twisting cherry picked data and anectodal incidents to fit their pre-determined conclusions and thus completely bypassing the accepted the scientific method. This is much like what is going on with "global warming" scam.

The problem when doctors declare someone "unfit" it is almost impossible to get the ruling reversed even when it was in error, intentional or not. Here is a recent example of this happening to a youtube prepper named dsarti1. Do you really want anyone with an MD after their name able to arbitrarily determine when your rights can be terminated? The only time this should be allowed is by determination of a jury trial.

nUv9pjxq5QI

babomb

28-Jul-2012, 11:06 PM

No, not everything can be taken at face value. I agree with you on that. But as Aces mentioned before me, when you start applying crazy conspiracy theories to everything, even the most simple of events such as this shooting,...well....then you're just being paranoid.

If that's the case, it's time to peel off from the computer and work your way into the real world....

You could be right. And i don't think that all other mass shootings are false flag.

There's a sizable and growing amount of people that question these events like I do. Are they all just individual cases of paranoia? That would be something, no?
There has to be a reason for that to occur. What would that be? Maybe because our government lies to us about almost everything? And if the government was doing clandestine tests on people with drugs and torture in the 50's with limited amount of success for the most part, then you have to wonder what they're doing now and what is the extent. That seems like common sense to me.

What exactly is the real world? Everyone's perceptions of the real world are different. Can you tell me what it is that makes the way that you see the world the way that it really is?

bassman

28-Jul-2012, 11:18 PM

in addition, there are other factors that play into this also. Like how the liberal media is running an anti-gun/pro-Obamacare campaign using this shooting as the vehicle. You can clearly see this agenda within the programming on several news networks.

Here we go again....

Sammich

29-Jul-2012, 01:42 AM

Here we go again....

Here we go again....

Here are some examples.

Lou Dobbs show on Fox Business, which tends not to have neocons hosts like Sean Vannity and Jim O'Reilly.

coALpSZP6go

Here is a news clip from the L.A. riots in 1992. Notice how the teleprompter reader Bree Walker and the other "reporters" are hysterically more concerned if the Korean store owner's guns are legal and registered than there are roving mobs are going around assaulting people and the city is burning down.

uRc_FlmW2Jc

krisvds

29-Jul-2012, 05:30 AM

What exactly is the real world? Everyone's perceptions of the real world are different. Can you tell me what it is that makes the way that you see the world the way that it really is?

This is basically what is wrong with conspiracy theories and their believer's way of thinking in a nutshell right there. If you make extraordinary claims or, for instance, imply that your government has a secret agenda that includes having their own innocent citizens shot than it is not the task of the sceptical person who questions the validity of such a claim to prove why he is sceptical, it is you who have to prove your point. Never the other way around.

I have been an atheist all my life and basically stopped having discussions on the subject with most religious people because countless times I heard: 'but can you prove God does not exist?'
Of course not. Neither can I prove that at the moment there lives a tiny little man in my closet that becomes invisible everytime I open it ...

Sammich

29-Jul-2012, 06:30 AM

babomb

29-Jul-2012, 07:41 PM

This is basically what is wrong with conspiracy theories and their believer's way of thinking in a nutshell right there. If you make extraordinary claims or, for instance, imply that your government has a secret agenda that includes having their own innocent citizens shot than it is not the task of the sceptical person who questions the validity of such a claim to prove why he is sceptical, it is you who have to prove your point. Never the other way around. That's not what I asked at all. I was responding to his claim that my views are not based in the "real world". I don't expect, nor did I ask anyone to prove that this or any other event that's been discussed here is, or is not on the level.
I simply asked bassman what makes his reality more valid than mine. I think it's a fair question. I think if someone outright claims, or even implies that someone elses observations are being made in error, that they should be expected to at the least explain why they think that. Otherwise the assertion is as empty as they accuse the opposition's claims to be. No?
Bassman's general point of view is that my own point of view is based on erroneous claims and distorted assumptions that are rooted in his own assumption that I spend too much time reading things on the internet. Why is it also assumed to be a failure of logic for me to ask him to explain why he thinks that? I'm not asking him to prove that this shooting is in fact not a false flag event. I wouldn't ask that of anyone. Because I know they can't prove it, just like I can't prove otherwise.

But it seems a bit unfair that he should be allowed to devalue my ideas and opinions without even being expected to provide a reason. But that i'm also in the wrong for asking him to explain why he thinks that? I never once said anything about expecting him to prove me wrong on anything, that was another assumption that was jumped to rather quickly.
And on top of all that, there IS in fact evidence to support the idea that elements of our government don't value the lives of the citizens. That itself is all that's needed to develop an outlook on things based on lack of trust, which puts everything related to it in question.
But then you have people who would rather try to devalue those ideas and belittle the people who hold them, rather than offer up anything constructive to counter those ideas.
And when confronted on it, avoid any bit of responsibility by saying:

it is not the task of the sceptical person who questions the validity of such a claim to prove why he is sceptical, it is you who have to prove your point. That holds true to the media regarding the official story about such events also.
If I'm skeptical of someone elses thoughts and ideas I give reason. Not because I HAVE TO , but because it's the decent thing to do. And when someone hides behind such a disclaimer, it's out of convenience not principle.

The fact of the matter is that we have a government that lies to us constantly, our media is owned by corporate heathens that see the people as mere peasants. Honesty and trust have no value anymore, so when people want to know the truth they're left to their own devices to find it. Everyone seems to have a political agenda so everything is spun according to that agenda. Any truth that exists is shrouded in layer upon layer of bullshit and disinformation. This is the reality of every American, whether they like it or not, and whether they believe it or not. So it should come as no surprise to anyone that given these undeniable circumstances that people form their own ideas regarding the truth. Nobody knows what to believe anymore. So people explore all possibilities because to do otherwise does you a disservice.
With things like the Patriot Act, that allow the government to do pretty much whatever they want out of the prying eyes of the media and the people, it's hard to know what the fuck is going on in this country.
So when there's a good possibility that our own government killed 3,000 of it's own citizens in a false flag terrorist act, it's not that much of a stretch to think that it's possible for it to have happened again in the form of a lone gunman attack on a theater killing 12.
Especially when certain political interests stand to gain from the recourse of such an act.
So I'm not here telling anyone that I have proof that this is in fact a false flag event or that I absolutely believe it to be , I never once said that I have any proof or made the positive claim that I believe this to be the way it is.
I'm saying that with this country in such a sad state that it's not possible to rule that out as a possibility.
And when someone disputes that as a possibility I would like to know what brings them to that conclusion.

When I asked bassman what leads him to believe what he does, I asked out of genuine interest. Not to make a point out of anything or to demand he show evidence for his opinion.
I would really like to know how someone can look at this country and not be suspicious of everything.

AcesandEights

29-Jul-2012, 11:47 PM

I can't help but weep for those of you who think any country is above lying and skulduggery to further its own twisted agendas. Look no further than recent developments:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/07/29/article-2180214-14425AAD000005DC-897_634x446.jpg

Now tell me how you will ever be able to sleep tonight!

Sammich

30-Jul-2012, 12:44 AM

And on top of all that, there IS in fact evidence to support the idea that elements of our government don't value the lives of the citizens. That itself is all that's needed to develop an outlook on things based on lack of trust, which puts everything related to it in question.
But then you have people who would rather try to devalue those ideas and belittle the people who hold them, rather than offer up anything constructive to counter those ideas.
And when confronted on it, avoid any bit of responsibility by saying:
That holds true to the media regarding the official story about such events also.
If I'm skeptical of someone elses thoughts and ideas I give reason. Not because I HAVE TO , but because it's the decent thing to do. And when someone hides behind such a disclaimer, it's out of convenience not principle.

The fact of the matter is that we have a government that lies to us constantly, our media is owned by corporate heathens that see the people as mere peasants. Honesty and trust have no value anymore, so when people want to know the truth they're left to their own devices to find it. Everyone seems to have a political agenda so everything is spun according to that agenda. Any truth that exists is shrouded in layer upon layer of bullshit and disinformation. This is the reality of every American, whether they like it or not, and whether they believe it or not. So it should come as no surprise to anyone that given these undeniable circumstances that people form their own ideas regarding the truth. Nobody knows what to believe anymore. So people explore all possibilities because to do otherwise does you a disservice.
With things like the Patriot Act, that allow the government to do pretty much whatever they want out of the prying eyes of the media and the people, it's hard to know what the fuck is going on in this country.
So when there's a good possibility that our own government killed 3,000 of it's own citizens in a false flag terrorist act, it's not that much of a stretch to think that it's possible for it to have happened again in the form of a lone gunman attack on a theater killing 12.
Especially when certain political interests stand to gain from the recourse of such an act.
So I'm not here telling anyone that I have proof that this is in fact a false flag event or that I absolutely believe it to be , I never once said that I have any proof or made the positive claim that I believe this to be the way it is.
I'm saying that with this country in such a sad state that it's not possible to rule that out as a possibility.
And when someone disputes that as a possibility I would like to know what brings them to that conclusion.

It's also notable that when I asked bassman what leads him to believe what he does, that I asked out of genuine interest. While his comments leading up to that were based solely on contempt for others ideas, aimed at preventing a specific person from expressing their own ideas, and his comments after were for the specific purpose of devaluing my ideas and belittling me for holding them as well as belittling other members who might agree.
Yes, I take offense to that sort of arrogance especially when nothing has been done to provoke it! And I'll always challenge efforts to prevent people from expressing their own ideas and opinions.

Much of the public have come to completely distrust anything the government does following the economic crisis of 2008. Numerous investigators, even with backgrounds from the Savings and Loan crash, have evidence that hundreds of thousands of counts of fraud took place at all levels just in regards to mortgage backed securities. Have there been any arrests or prosecutions? No. John Corzine of MF Global "misplaces" $1.2 billion and he gets his ass kissed at a congression hearing into the matter. The latest is this LIBOR fraud that has roots in big financial firms in the UK and the U.S., yet again no arrests. It shows that there no longer is equal protection under the law. The system of justice has become a 2 tiered system where those who make large "campaign contributions" (i.e. bribes) or are the armed mercenaries that protect those in power routinely skate free with a slap on the wrist. A regular peon who forgets to pay their parking tickets will get thrown in jail.

Then there is the Dept of Homeland Security making huge purchases of ammunition the last 3 years.

Preparing for Civil War: Chart Shows DHS Has Bought Hundreds of Millions of Rounds of Ammo Since 2009 (http://theintelhub.com/2012/07/15/preparing-for-civil-war-chart-shows-dhs-has-bought-hundreds-of-millions-of-rounds-of-ammo-since-2009/)

In the last six months many articles and reports have been written that detailed the hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition that the Department of Homeland Security has purchased since Obama took office in 2009.

This astonishing amount of purchased ammunition has lead many to speculate and believe that homeland security is actively preparing for what they believe will be a bloody and extremely violent American uprising and or civil war.

When you couple this large scale buildup of ammo with bulletproof checkpoints, law enforcement bulletins labeling everyday Americans as possible terrorists, and a series of videos that painted middle class Americans as the new Al Qaeda you can clearly see that at least portions of DHS are planning for some sort of violent confrontation with the American people.

Why is the Department of Homeland Security buying ammo as if they are about to go to war if that is not their exact plan?

It is also important to consider the fact that Obama has given DHS extraordinary powers in the event of an emergency regardless whether or not they created it in the first place.

Sadly, there is little to nothing standing in the way from rogue agents carrying out a false flag which in turn would give the entire agency dictator like powers, turning America into a full fledged Fascist police state.

When you have a government that has repeatedly ignored the Constitution and legalized without trial the spying on, indefinite detention and assassination of U.S. citizens at home and abroad is it any wonder why so many people have come to not believe anything coming out of Washington D.C.? There is no conspiracy theory to this. This is fact.

strayrider

30-Jul-2012, 02:41 AM

I cannot recall anyone suggesting this. The call is for tighter regulations, which is still withing the spirit of the actual document. "A well regulated militia..."

Clearly the regulations which are at play at the moment aren't working, or at least aren't working enough to help prevent these type of massacres and it comes down to a matter of regulation, not banning, as some people would like to suggest. Most people who would agree with tighter regulation on guns don't want to see banning. They want to see guns not falling into the hands of those who would use them for nefarious purposes. The "Yall ain'tn takin ur gunnns!!!" approach is not helpful in any situation and comes across as completely careless and oblivious to incidents like these.

In terms of the 2nd Amendment the phrase "well regulated militia" is intended to indicate a body of irregular troops that are prepared for military service in support of regular armed forces. In addition, the militia act as a deterrence to government tyranny.

"Well regulated" should be read as: well led, well trained, or well versed in the use of arms. The "regulated" portion of the phrase has nothing to do with gun control laws.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

Sammich

30-Jul-2012, 06:23 AM

It is a huge mistake to think that the people who want "tighter regulation", "reasonable restrictions", or "common sense gun laws" are not seeking an outright or incremental and eventual ban on private ownership of firearms.

It already has happened in New York. First there was the "reasonable" registration of firearms. Then there was the passage of the Sullivan Act which it made it illegal to own guns without a license, which was only issued to the rich and those with political connections. The gun registration list was then used for go door to door confiscation for unlicensed firearms. De facto gun ban.

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in -- I would have done it." - Sen. Dianne Feinstein, in a 60 Minutes Interview

“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” To let the assault weapons ban expire just as we are realizing its benefits would be a major setback in the success we’ve had in reducing crime over the last decade. The fact of the matter is that there is no legitimate use for these weapons. - Senator Charles Schumer

"We can and must mitigate gun violence through commonsense restrictions on high-capacity magazines and military-style weapons.” - Congresswoman Nita Lowey

"Large magazines, assault weapons do not need to be on the streets for the ordinary citizen. They are meant for the military," Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy

The weapons' [semi-automatic rifles] menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." - Josh Sugarmann, Executive Director Violence Policy Center

The Brady Campaign supports banning military-style semi-automatic assault weapons along with high-capacity ammunition magazines. These dangerous weapons have no sporting or civilian use. Their combat features are appropriate to military, not civilian, contexts. - Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

The ADL (Anti-Defamation League) supported the District of Columbia before the US Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller which argued that the city's ban on the possession of handguns and any functional firearms, even for self-defense in the home is not prohibited by the Second Amendment. - Anti-Defamation League, Wikipedia entry

Today we call on the U.S. Congress to pass a federal assault weapons ban modeled on California's effective law that would ban these weapons once and for all. - Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, NATIONAL GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION ORGANIZATIONS CALL FOR EFFECTIVE FEDERAL ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN IN WAKE OF ALABAMA RAMPAGE SHOOTING LEAVING 11 DEAD, INCLUDING SHOOTER

“I believe the people should have the right to bear arms, but I don’t believe that we have to have assault weapons as part of our personal arsenal. - Mitt "Mittens the human etch-a-sketch flip-flop" Romney, 2004 after signing a permanent assault weapons ban in Massachusetts.

krisvds

30-Jul-2012, 06:58 AM

Sammich

30-Jul-2012, 07:12 AM

SymphonicX

30-Jul-2012, 01:14 PM

No offense taken.

The government, the media and big corporations here have become so corrupt and intertwined that it is impossible to believe anything they say. If you moved to the U.S., I would say within 2 years after witnessing firsthand the b.s. that goes on you too would end up a hardcore cynic of this government .

Why haven't you all done something about it then? You've got fucking guns, for God's sake!!! :D :p

babomb

30-Jul-2012, 04:15 PM

@ babomb & Samich

didn't mean to belittle you guys. So no offense intended by my post on scepticism. It's just that some of the claims you guys make are so over the top (the government could be involved in the recent shooting to further a political agenda) they are, to me, unbelievable.
I'm a sceptical person which basically means that I can't bring myself to believe in anything without some independent scientific proof that in itself is able to stand up to outside criticism.
That's all. Well you must only hear what you want to hear. Because nobody actually made that positive claim. We only hold that as a real possibility. I also provided proof that the USGOV actually engaged in behavior modification and mind control programs in the past. Do you dismiss this evidence completely and conveniently? This is not only a matter of public record, it's been admitted by our own government as well as the canadian government. A page or 2 back I posted the official goals of this program. None of you "skeptics" even commented on it. Do you completely dismiss it or not believe that it was actually a real program. I fully understand that just the existence of this program doesn't mean that it's the cause of active shooter events. However, if they engaged in such unethical and questionable programs in the past, why would anyone think they've stopped? Especially when people that were involved in that program have said that it continued under a different name.
Answer this for me-9/11, official story or inside job?
during 9/11 they were conducting a simulation to prepare people for an event where planes were hijacked and slammed into buildings. This happened again in the UK during the subway attack. And again on the same day that the theater shooting occured. Lou pointed this out a few pages back before bassman exerted his influence to stop him.
Nobody is claiming to have proof of any of this. If there was proof it wouldn't be a conspiracy, it would be a fact. All we've been saying is that our government engages in such questionable activities, and lies to us so regularly that it's difficult to know what to believe.

Why haven't you all done something about it then? You've got fucking guns, for God's sake!!! :D :p Ya know, when all this 1st started I didn't understand why some other US members were hostile in regard to topics like this here. I thought they were just touchy about the topic.
But I fully understand now! It's because they know that some of you guys are just disrespectful smart ass little punks.

krisvds

30-Jul-2012, 04:37 PM

Answer this for me-9/11, official story or inside job?

Here's some interesting material I use when teaching about conspiracy theories to my students. In fact I use the 9/11 inside job conspiracy as a casus to compare how science uses evidence/proof, in contrast to pseudo-science.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tacYjsS-g6k

http://youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11/

and of course this:

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.be/

This quote I found quite enlightening in regards to this thread. It was taken from Skeptic.com's article linked above:

The American government deceived its citizens about the real human costs of Vietnam, and resorted to military tactics that were ethically questionable even by the standards of war. The revelations of Watergate, the Iran-Contra scandal, and other nefarious schemes great and small have understandably eroded public confidence in government. Couple that with an administration, that took office after the most controversial presidential election in more than a century, and one that backed out of international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol, misled citizens about the science of global warming and stem cell research, initiated a war in Iraq based on unsupportable “intelligence” about weapons of mass destruction, and failed to respond in adequately to the effects of a hurricanes in the Gulf Coast, and you have strong motivations for suspicion.40 (Suffice it to say, admiration for George W. Bush is not my motivation for defending him against the claims of conspiracy theorists).

However, there are a few things to be said about suspicion. First, there is the simple philosophical point that suspicion alone demonstrates nothing — any theory needs evidence in its favor if it is to be taken seriously. Second, the mistakes made by our government in the past are qualitatively different from a conscious decision to kill thousands of its own citizens in order to justify the oppression of others. Most importantly, there is the fact that most of what we know about the bad decisions made by our government is only knowable due to the relative transparency with which our government operates, and the freedom to disseminate and discuss this information.

SymphonicX

30-Jul-2012, 06:45 PM

Ya know, when all this 1st started I didn't understand why some other US members were hostile in regard to topics like this here. I thought they were just touchy about the topic.
But I fully understand now! It's because they know that some of you guys are just disrespectful smart ass little punks.

Wait a minute...hold the fucking phone.
Who the fuck are you to call me anything? It was a F U C K I N G joke. Did you not see the smilies? The exclaimation marks? FFS. Do you think I was aiming for a response? Are you really, really that completely stupid?

God damnit. For those too stupid to understand, it was a joke. Not meant in seriousness nor to be used as an excuse to go beating your fucking chests.

Jesus H Christ I can't believe people sometimes.

-- -------- Post added at 06:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:25 PM ----------

One thing I've come to learn after years of this and other nameless boards...

Whatever you do, don't get involved in a discussion on American politics/religion/gun culture. Why? Because as a non-american, you just cannot fucking reach people.

Offer an observation? Shot down. Offer a joke? Shot down. Offer anything that isn't complimentary bleating about "the greatest nation on Earth" and suddenly you're akin to Hitler.

But if the UK has a riot, or a murder, or WHATEVER.....it's a different story.

-- -------- Post added at 06:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:32 PM ----------

Twin towers was an inside job, it was holograms, Michael Jackson isn't dead, Angels are real, Jesus walked the ground of America as per your Presidential candidates, James Holmes was paid by the CIA, Obama is Muslim/communist/socialist/terrorist/Kenyan-ist, area 51 contains alien life, they killed JFK, moon landings never happened.

Probably aiming the banning reticule over my head here but I literally don't give a fuck. Most of you are top-dogs, amazing people from what I can tell. But some of you are complete fucktards. Go fuck yourselves.

babomb

30-Jul-2012, 06:52 PM

Here's some interesting material I use when teaching about conspiracy theories to my students. In fact I use the 9/11 inside job conspiracy as a casus to compare how science uses evidence/proof, in contrast to pseudo-science.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tacYjsS-g6k

http://youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11/

and of course this:

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.be/

This quote I found quite enlightening in regards to this thread. It was taken from Skeptic.com's article linked above:

The American government deceived its citizens about the real human costs of Vietnam, and resorted to military tactics that were ethically questionable even by the standards of war. The revelations of Watergate, the Iran-Contra scandal, and other nefarious schemes great and small have understandably eroded public confidence in government. Couple that with an administration, that took office after the most controversial presidential election in more than a century, and one that backed out of international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol, misled citizens about the science of global warming and stem cell research, initiated a war in Iraq based on unsupportable “intelligence” about weapons of mass destruction, and failed to respond in adequately to the effects of a hurricanes in the Gulf Coast, and you have strong motivations for suspicion.40 (Suffice it to say, admiration for George W. Bush is not my motivation for defending him against the claims of conspiracy theorists).

However, there are a few things to be said about suspicion. First, there is the simple philosophical point that suspicion alone demonstrates nothing — any theory needs evidence in its favor if it is to be taken seriously. Second, the mistakes made by our government in the past are qualitatively different from a conscious decision to kill thousands of its own citizens in order to justify the oppression of others. Most importantly, there is the fact that most of what we know about the bad decisions made by our government is only knowable due to the relative transparency with which our government operates, and the freedom to disseminate and discuss this information. All this does is drive my point further. That there's so much disinformation circulating in regard to these issues and events that it's impossible to tell truth from fiction on these matters.
There's evidence to support both views. And each side thinks that the evidence to support their own view is stronger than the oppositions.
The evidence to support the inside job theory isn't conclusive enough to justify total belief. And evidence to debunk it isn't conclusive enough to completely thwart it. So you have to look at other aspects. Like the track record of our government. Questionable practices and amazing coincidences. We choose to err on the side of caution because our government does nothing to allow us to give them the benefit of the doubt on anything. So as Americans we don't know what to believe. Which itself is suspicious because that's the goal of disinformation, to confuse people and discredit ideas. It's all suspicious because we know better than to trust our government. So everything they say and do is suspect.
So even though some things seem far fetched, we distrust our government so much that we can't bring ourselves to totally rule them out. Are you of the belief that there are no conspiracies? That all conspiracies exist only in the mind of those who believe them?
This is a situation that the government has created by it's secretive nature. It's not created out of nothing.
And what about the MKULTRA program? It's not a conspiracy theory, it's documented fact. But you seem to want to disregard that for some reason. When a government engages in such activities they simply can not be trusted. Because they're so secretive, we just can't put anything past them.
Nobody is trying to make you believe any of this. We're just justifying our extreme suspicion of our government because you seem to be saying that we have no reason for such extreme suspicion. Which is absolutely not true. Since you aren't from here it's easier for you to give them the benefit of the doubt. Because no matter what the outcome of that is it doesn't effect you directly. But we have more of an emotional investment in it which makes that difficult for us to do.
We're a society that's fabricated to the core. And everything is capitalized on for political purposes. Our government uses crisis to push its agenda. We've seen this time and again. So to us it's not a stretch to think that our government would create crisis in order to further an agenda. no, we can't prove it. But that only adds to the suspicion.

I'd like to know why you think that such a vast majority of Americans believe in conspiracy theories and have such a deep suspicion of the government. Surely you can't think that it's just a bunch of individuals that are pre-disposed to distrust and paranoia, and that there's no logical basis for it.
There's something in our society that creates this.

bassman

30-Jul-2012, 07:16 PM

Wow, this thread went down hill fast. Well, before it gets locked for getting just a wee bit too heated, they've charged the shooter:

Holmes, who was represented by a public defender at the hearing at the Arapahoe County Justice Center, was charged with 24 counts of first-degree murder and 116 counts of attempted murder.

His attorneys asked for more time before entering a plea. For each of the 12 fatally shot moviegoers, Holmes faces one count of first-degree murder and one count of first-degree murder with "extreme indifference." The maximum penalty is death, the Denver Post reported.

AcesandEights

30-Jul-2012, 07:33 PM

No more personal attacks, please.

If you feel the need to make them, step away from your computer for a bit and give yourself a reality check.

babomb

30-Jul-2012, 09:39 PM

No more personal attacks, please.

If you feel the need to make them, step away from your computer for a bit and give yourself a reality check. My apologies everyone...

As to the situation itself with the shooter and new information coming out, it's just fishy. He had a profile made on a site called Adult Friend Finder. You can see images of it if you search google images. The profile was made a week before the incident I think.
On that profile is some of his personal information and status.
His status is-"Will you come visit me in prison?" That, coupled with the details we already knew, would indicate that his plan is what? To gun down as many people in the theater as possible, blow up his apartment, surrender and go to prison? That just doesn't make sense no matter how you look at it.
So he meticulously plans out this complex attack on the theater, builds complex and elaborate explosive systems in his apartment, just to surrender and go to prison? It would make sense if would've killed himself after the attack. Are we supposed to think he wanted to go to prison? Why wouldn't you kill yourself if you knew that what you were about to do was gonna land you in prison for the rest of your life?
And some of the details in his personal information. Odd.
It asks if he smokes, he prefers not to say. It asks if he does drugs, he prefers not to say. Then the kicker, it asks about his "male endowment" and he answers-short/average?? So, he doesn't want to say if he smokes or does drugs, but has no problem telling everyone he has a small dick?
It just makes you wonder WTF is going on with this situation. Did he really setup that profile? It seems convenient and suspicious.
Holmes' father was also set to testify against the banks
I'm not saying that it's some vast conspiracy. It's just my nature to question things so i can't just see it as "who knows what goes on in the mind of these types". Just like I don't accept the religious argument of "God works in mysterious ways". It's too convenient.
Other things, like when you listen to the audio from the theater, there's talk about multiple suspects. One wearing blue and white with a large red backpack. When Holmes is apprehended he's sitting in the passenger seat of his own car. Police find multiple gas masks and a 2nd handgun. Outside that rear exit there's a blood trail that leads back INTO the theater, with spurts consistent with a severed artery toward the rear exit not away from it.
There was a special on CNN called Madness at Midnight. A witness account from someone who saw someone exit through that rear door claims that he kept the door open with his foot. I don't see how he could've geared up like that right outside the door with his foot propping it open.

krisvds

31-Jul-2012, 06:05 AM

I understand your government has done some suspicious things in the past. I'm not questioning that.
But every time a tragedy, like this shooting, occurs you will see the same thing happening: people putting it in a political context. No matter how many independent experts dig up proof to the contrary (9/11), it all becomes part of the old argument: the may be part of a conspiracy...
It's like that quote I posted earlier: suspicon alone doesn't prove anything in a case like this.

Anyways; over here in Europe people grew up in vastly different world concerning these 'rights'. I firmly believe my personal freedoms end where other's begin. I am more than willing to give up some right to carry arms to make my surroundings safer. It's still a free world over here too you know?

And yeah, there is no need for personal attacks. That's why I like this forum so much. I can tell how different your views are to mine: it hasn't stopped us from having a discussion before and it hasn't here.

But maybe this isn't the place to do so. I can understand many believe it to be in bad taste to discuss philosophy and politics so close after such a devastating emotional drama occurs. I guess we all love the movies so much that we were all shocked by this insanity.

Neil

31-Jul-2012, 10:07 AM

I am more than willing to give up some right to carry arms to make my surroundings safer.
That's my opinion 100% too over here in the UK. But I don't have that opinion for the US. For them to lose their guns would be a huge undertaking, and I simply can't see how that could do it.

To the US folks? What is the current state of mind over this attack then? I'd imagine there's a certain feeling that change is required, but then reality hits on how could such a change take place such that it would actually achieve anything?

Tricky

31-Jul-2012, 09:05 PM

I've been away for a week relaxing in Greece and it seems I've upset a few people in this thread reading back over it. I'm allowed an opinion on the US just the way the US seems to have a condescending view of the UK as if we are the ones ignorant to the rest of the world and are somehow prisoners because we don't carry guns. I'll leave it at that.

babomb

31-Jul-2012, 10:12 PM

To the US folks? What is the current state of mind over this attack then? I'd imagine there's a certain feeling that change is required, but then reality hits on how could such a change take place such that it would actually achieve anything? You have some folks screaming "we need regulation". Meaning they want there to be a way for the amount of ammunition someone buys to be tracked in a government database. You have some people wanting all out banning of firearms, especially assault weapons.
But the general attitude toward it is that it's in poor taste to talk about the politics of it because of the tragedy, unless of course you agree with the politics being talked about. In other words, it's ok to talk about the politics if you are for stricter gun control, but in poor taste to talk about it if you oppose it.
There was some stupid controversy regarding an article posted to facebook about some facial recognition software that was used on footage taken from Occupy San Diego, where there was a 96% accuracy rating that put James Holmes at OccupySD. Some women were furious that the event was being made political when there was 26 people killed in the theater. But then the same women proceeded to argue the politics of it.
So basically, people want something done but they don't know what or how to do it. So surely it will be big government to the rescue with more laws and more intrusion in the lives of the people.

Without getting into the gun debate all over again. My concern is with the idea that everything should be legislated. They want to regulate the size of sodas that are available to people at restaurants, they want to regulate baby formula for new mothers. Everything becomes a clusterfuck here and then everyone wants the government to step in and legislate the decisions that I think should be up to the people themselves.
It's a sad state of affairs when a society becomes unable to make any decisions without government legislation.

-- -------- Post added at 04:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:29 PM ----------

I've been away for a week relaxing in Greece and it seems I've upset a few people in this thread reading back over it. I'm allowed an opinion on the US just the way the US seems to have a condescending view of the UK as if we are the ones ignorant to the rest of the world and are somehow prisoners because we don't carry guns. I'll leave it at that. Can't speak for anyone else but I don't think people in the UK are prisoners for not carrying guns. I personally value my right to bear arms, and I have a problem with someone else making the decision to prevent me from having that right. That's all.
I've never done anything to give people the impression that I'm not responsible enough to handle that right. I have no problem with criminals and crazies being denied that right. But I'm neither, so I should be able to own as many firearms as I choose and as much ammo as I choose. And I shouldn't be flagged on a DHS or TSA list because i bought a brick of shotgun shells.

Sammich

31-Jul-2012, 10:13 PM

Without getting into the gun debate all over again. My concern is with the idea that everything should be legislated. They want to regulate the size of sodas that are available to people at restaurants, they want to regulate baby formula for new mothers. Everything becomes a clusterfuck here and then everyone wants the government to step in and legislate the decisions that I think should be up to the people themselves.
It's a sad state of affairs when a society becomes unable to make any decisions without government legislation.

You hit the nail right on the head. There are people that are so afraid of their own lack of self-control that they project this inadequacy to all of society. Instead of a Bill of Rights, they want government granted priviledges and permissions. They would rather live in a nanny state where arbitrary victimless crime laws can tell them what they can and can't do. Personal responsibility is alien to them. These people are just too immature to understand and appreciate the concept of freedom.

babomb

31-Jul-2012, 11:15 PM

Sammich

31-Jul-2012, 11:30 PM

The article below relates to the Fast and Furious scandal where ATF agents purposely put guns in the hands of Mexican drug cartel members to create a situation that could be used to justify a gun control agenda. It's shit like this that makes us suspicious of everything.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/31/congressional-report-names-five-atf-figures-in-fast-and-furious-scandal-reveals-related-murder/

The major issue is that when government sanctioned operations like this are exposed there is NO accountability. Fast and Furious type operations span both the Bush and Obama administrations to the highest levels and are comparable to the Iran/Contra guns for drugs affair that took place in the 80s. The latest with Fast and Furious is that 5 low level ATF are being made the scapegoats in an effort to make this go away and all this will do is incite even more to the existing public mistrust and suspicion in everything that the federal government does.

babomb

31-Jul-2012, 11:49 PM

You hit the nail right on the head. There are people that are so afraid of their own lack of self-control that they project this inadequacy to all of society. Instead of a Bill of Rights, they want government granted priviledges and permissions. They would rather live in a nanny state where arbitrary victimless crime laws can tell them what they can and can't do. Personal responsibility is alien to them. These people are just too immature to understand and appreciate the concept of freedom. And our government is more than happy to oblige. They create an absolute dependence on government.
I was watching an episode of Cops lastnight on G4. It was a domestic dispute where a guy went home drunk and started smashing shit in his house. he had a wife and 3 small kids. His wife was the one who called and she kept getting up close to the camera and calling for a ban on alcohol. This shows the mindstate of the uneducated masses(the majority) who feel that there should be a law to deal with everything. People are inviting this overbearing presence of authority into everyone's lives. It's getting to the point where everything has a law to govern it. So is it any surprise that we have such a high crime rate when laws make criminals out of everyday people?
So now they're gonna end up implementing a government database that flags everyone who buys a brick of ammo at sams club or costco. Effectively creating domestic terrorists out of people who are just being thrifty.
It sickens me!

-- -------- Post added at 05:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:31 PM ----------

Then there's this whole police brutality thing that happens pretty much daily these days in the US.
I got a question for the UK members. Watch these videos. Does shit like this happen in the UK? Ever? Let alone daily.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8Y0uWycuZ8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AItgu2Onqg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZdZ-coZ37U&feature=related

Then there's this youtube video where at least some of the media are asking the same questions I've been asking about the theater shooting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jeW_-Kq7vA Seems as though me and Sammich aren't the only ones asking these "paranoid" questions...

LouCipherr

01-Aug-2012, 03:29 PM

Seems as though me and Sammich aren't the only ones asking these "paranoid" questions...

You're not - but we'll be the first ones labeled as conspiracy theorists, kooks, and tinfoil hat wearers all because we don't believe what's spoon-fed to us by the so-called "news" and "media" in this country.

Did any of you hear the stupid interview with the one "witness" from the theater shooting?

Witness to Second Shooter (http://dropbox.curry.com/ShowNotesArchive/2012/07/NA-429-2012-07-26/Assets/Orange%20Hair%20Dye/Second%20Shooter.mp3)

Right-click and "save as" and take a listen to that bullshit.

He spits off statistics like an almanac (not a natural way of speaking for anyone - unless they're reading a script!) and he goes on and on about "casualties" and how he sat "precisely 4 seats from the aisle" (do you remember that kind of detail after you go see a movie? What seat did you sit in the last time you were at the movies? Do you even remember?) and he seems to have an excellent top-to-bottom description of the shooter - even though the movie had started according to him (which means the theater was completely dark). He even said, and I quote, "When my girlfriend arrived on location..."

:stunned:

When his girlfriend arrived "on location"? "casualties"?? Spitting out stats? Who the hell talks like this? When was the last time any of you were talking to someone and said, "when is your friend expected to arrive on location?"

But yeah, we're the crazy ones for thinking there's more to the story than there is. As if we don't have reason to believe we're being lied to since our media, government and police forces have shown over and over again that they aren't to be trusted.

http://www.movieactors.com/freezeframes5/signs119.jpeg

It has nothing to do with "conspiracy theories" - it has everything to do with listening carefully and deconstructing what you're hearing and seeing.

AcesandEights

01-Aug-2012, 04:14 PM

he goes on and on about "casualties" and how he sat "precisely 4 seats from the aisle" (do you remember that kind of detail after you go see a movie? What seat did you sit in the last time you were at the movies? Do you even remember?) and he seems to have an excellent top-to-bottom description of the shooter

To be fair, I never had a traumatic life event take place at a movie theater (notwithstanding Diary of the Dead) that seered into my brain and had me probably replaying the event over and over afterward. Just thinking out loud.

LouCipherr

01-Aug-2012, 06:25 PM

To be fair, I never had a traumatic life event take place at a movie theater (notwithstanding Diary of the Dead) that seered into my brain and had me probably replaying the event over and over afterward. Just thinking out loud.

:lol: @ the Diary comment.

I hear ya, Aces. Thank you for responding in a civil manner. ;)

This isn't directed at you, I'm also just thinking out loud:

After listening to this "witness" interview, I had to ask myself something: when I go to the movies, do I remember anything about the strangers around me? The answer is always no. I spend most of my time either reading trivia on the screen (they show that kinda stuff around here before the trailers start) or talking to my friends that came with me, not even bothering to consider the people around me unless they do something to warrant attention. Someone's cell phone ringing prior to the movie starting doesn't cause me to suddenly pay attention to them (unlike this guy in the interview). It happens all the time. I'd tend to think most people are like that - yet, this guy gives a description of a stranger that is waaaaay too detailed for the average person going to the movies. Imagine how many people were there. I'd think it would be a packed full house, considering - and he picked out this one guy's actions before the shooter came in? Out of what, at least 100 (if not way more) people packed in there?

As Bill S. Preston, Esquire once said, "Something strange is afoot at the Circle K." :shifty:

Something doesn't jive. I don't know what, but something isn't right. If that makes me crazy, well, then so be it. I've been called way worse.

babomb

01-Aug-2012, 09:52 PM

You're not - but we'll be the first ones labeled as conspiracy theorists, kooks, and tinfoil hat wearers all because we don't believe what's spoon-fed to us by the so-called "news" and "media" in this country.

Did any of you hear the stupid interview with the one "witness" from the theater shooting?

Witness to Second Shooter (http://dropbox.curry.com/ShowNotesArchive/2012/07/NA-429-2012-07-26/Assets/Orange%20Hair%20Dye/Second%20Shooter.mp3)

Right-click and "save as" and take a listen to that bullshit.

He spits off statistics like an almanac (not a natural way of speaking for anyone - unless they're reading a script!) and he goes on and on about "casualties" and how he sat "precisely 4 seats from the aisle" (do you remember that kind of detail after you go see a movie? What seat did you sit in the last time you were at the movies? Do you even remember?) and he seems to have an excellent top-to-bottom description of the shooter - even though the movie had started according to him (which means the theater was completely dark). He even said, and I quote, "When my girlfriend arrived on location..."

:stunned:

When his girlfriend arrived "on location"? "casualties"?? Spitting out stats? Who the hell talks like this? When was the last time any of you were talking to someone and said, "when is your friend expected to arrive on location?"

But yeah, we're the crazy ones for thinking there's more to the story than there is. As if we don't have reason to believe we're being lied to since our media, government and police forces have shown over and over again that they aren't to be trusted.

http://www.movieactors.com/freezeframes5/signs119.jpeg

It has nothing to do with "conspiracy theories" - it has everything to do with listening carefully and deconstructing what you're hearing and seeing.
I know exactly who that witness is in the audio. Not personally, but he spoke in that CNN documentary "Madness at Midnight". Only he wasn't so positive about all the facts and figures he threw out. In the CNN program he says the guy who got the phone call was sitting "maybe 2 seats from the end on the 1st row". He's also the witness that says that the guy who got the phone call went through the rear emergency exit, propped it open with his foot and began motioning to someone.
He didn't say anything about the guy having red hair until the CNN host specifically asked that, then he said "I think he did have red hair".
My thoughts on why this witness now spits out all these terms and figures in this way is that he's been "debriefed" so many times by agents and law enforcement, and been interviewed so much by the media, that it's now like a speech that's been committed to memory. They don't just take a statement in incidents like this. They take the witness' statement and read it back to them multiple times using technical terms used by law enforcement, then ask again, repeat it back to them again, and again and again. So they basically take a raw witness account of the events and mold it into something that sounds like an official PR statement, then feed it back into the witness' mind, and make them repeat it until it's exactly how they want it to be when the witness repeats it to other parties. By the time they're done with these witnesses they won't have a raw recollection of the actual experience. They'll remember it the way that law enforcement agents have recreated it in their minds eye.

This witness also said that when the gunman entered through that door that he "swung in through the door, like he was trying to act like a super villain". I have no idea what "swung in" means.
But according to the official story Holmes was covered head to toe with body armor, a tactical vest loaded to the gills with 30 round mags for the AR which depending on the specific vest could mean 12-15 additional magazines, the AR was "hanging around his neck" which most likely is referring to a 1 point tactical sling. He also had a Remington 870 12ga with a bandoleer sling(presumably filled with 12ga shells). So we're talking about 60-80lbs of additional gear distributed across his body, but concentrated mostly on his upper body.

People who were in the court room during his 2 court appearances describe him as frail and a man of small stature. Yet, he's able to swing in like a comic villain, dance around the theater with all that gear in the dark with tear gas blocking his vision, he's wearing a gas mask, has no training in the use of the gear or weapons, but he's able to achieve a 66% accuracy rating?
If that IS actually how it happened, that's fucking incredible! That's on par with an Army Ranger or US Marine from an MEU.
Then, he outfits his entire apartment with IED's that agents on the scene have been quoted as saying "something of the complexity and efficiency not normally seen outside of a war zone".
He does all this with this amazing accuracy and skill, but has no plan of escape or "grand finale". His plan after all is completed is to go out back and hang around by his car?
Something is wrong with this picture! I have no proof of anything, and I can't make any positive claims as to what it is, but something is seriously wrong with this picture!

Neil

01-Aug-2012, 10:44 PM

^^ Surely there's questions being asked how he got in through a fire escape that shouldn't allow people in?

wayzim

02-Aug-2012, 12:49 AM

^^ Surely there's questions being asked how he got in through a fire escape that shouldn't allow people in?

The immediate supposition to this (following the shooting ) was that the man exiting to make a phone call was Holmes himself who stopped the door from closing all the way - his car parked close by so he could put on his gear. I'd heard nothing that said these were exits with alarms - folks seem to assume this.

The amusing thing about this whole discussion is how we seem to Pick and Chose what testimony to believe and who to dismiss off hand? We also assume we can apply sane logic and motives ( ours, not his ) to an unsettled mind. If his only goal was chaos ( i.e. The Joker statement? ) who's to say that means Escape or even Suicide at the hands of the cop.

And honestly, if he thought the explosive experts might accidently set off his booby trap while trying to disarm it, why not tell them? A last Hurrah, maybe?

And now the current question, is the university responsible if they knew that this former student was disturbed but he quit before they decided to intervene? This doesn't need an extra person and invisible terrorist cell to be very bizarre indeed.

Way Zim

babomb

02-Aug-2012, 02:58 AM

^^ Surely there's questions being asked how he got in through a fire escape that shouldn't allow people in? The idea is that he went into the theater as if he were just going to the movie. Once inside he went out through the emergency exit and kept his foot inside the door while he suited up and prepared for the attack. Then he swung in like a comic villain and executed the attack.

-- -------- Post added at 08:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:44 PM ----------

The amusing thing about this whole discussion is how we seem to Pick and Chose what testimony to believe and who to dismiss off hand? We also assume we can apply sane logic and motives ( ours, not his ) to an unsettled mind. If his only goal was chaos ( i.e. The Joker statement? ) who's to say that means Escape or even Suicide at the hands of the cop. W're examining the testimony available. Nobody is saying that witness testimony is false or otherwise invalid.
And it's odd that the entire attack is so well planned out and methodical up until the point where he goes out to his car as if to await his capture. And that he makes that profile on adult friend finder where his status is "Will you visit me in prison?". As if his whole plan was to be be caught and go to prison. That doesn't fit with the methodical nature of the rest of the incident. He never even tries to flee, or attempts to resist although it seems like he planned to resist all along. What was the body armor for if not to resist or give him a chance to get away? The theater was a gun free zone, and he had to have known that. So what would the body armor be for? A costume? Not likely.
To write it all off as him simply being insane and therefore his motivations can't be known is way too convenient.

And honestly, if he thought the explosive experts might accidently set off his booby trap while trying to disarm it, why not tell them? A last Hurrah, maybe? That's very possible. But the keyword there being "maybe". You'd think though that as he's acquiring the knowledge to build those explosives that he would've been made aware of the way that explosives are disarmed and planned for that. The news footage of them inside his apartment disarming the explosives seems almost as if it were just for show. It's a very brief clip, showing the FBI agents on a boom arm breaking the window. Then it's just a couple guys walking back and forth by the window, and suddenly a small bang like someone threw an m80.
Again, it seems very convenient.

shootemindehead

02-Aug-2012, 09:23 AM

This isn't directed at you, I'm also just thinking out loud:

After listening to this "witness" interview...

Eyewitness testimony is notoriously bunkum most of the time though, Lou. Studies have shown that people tend to spend more time "filling in the gaps" of didn't happen, than remembering what actually happened. Also, people will go with concensus generally.

I remember reading about a study carried out in a uni in the States, that gathered a number of people together for some seemingly banal event. Suddenly masked men burst in the room and took several of the teachers hostage, bound them and then took them away, leaving one guy guarding the terrified people in the room. After a time, the other masked men and the teachers came back in the room and everything was revealed. The people were then interviewed about what they had just witnessed and every one of them got major details wrong. Not only that, but everyone actually made up details, including justifications on why the teachers were kidnapped in the first place! Then when the people were interviewed together, major parts of their stories changed to go with the flow of the other witnesses.

By the end of the experiment, the generally agreed "eyewitness" story bared no resemblance to what actually happened in the room.

Neil

02-Aug-2012, 09:30 AM

The immediate supposition to this (following the shooting ) was that the man exiting to make a phone call was Holmes himself
Ah! The simplest explanation is often the right one!

babomb

03-Aug-2012, 01:24 AM

Ah! The simplest explanation is often the right one! That's not really ever been the subject of doubt. What I wonder is could he have suited up in ballistic leggings, and all the other items he used in the attack with his foot jammed in the door? When you look at the photos of the scene, his car is 100 or so feet away from the door. And the witness account of him motioning to someone outside? Are we disregarding that according to shootem's latest post?
He wasn't exiting to make a phone call either. He received a phone call and exited through the emergency exit.

Neil

03-Aug-2012, 09:43 AM

That's not really ever been the subject of doubt. What I wonder is could he have suited up in ballistic leggings, and all the other items he used in the attack with his foot jammed in the door? When you look at the photos of the scene, his car is 100 or so feet away from the door. And the witness account of him motioning to someone outside? Are we disregarding that according to shootem's latest post?
He wasn't exiting to make a phone call either. He received a phone call and exited through the emergency exit.

Surely something other than a foot could have been used to prop the door open for his return. Even just a pen would have achieved that!?

babomb

03-Aug-2012, 09:07 PM

Surely something other than a foot could have been used to prop the door open for his return. Even just a pen would have achieved that!? And this is the point. That there is no information surfacing beside witness testimony. And if we can disregard witness testimony stating that the alleged shooter was motioning to someone outside, then we can pretty much disregard all witness testimony. So then it's safe to say that we don't know anything about what happened that night except that 12 died and 58 were injured. We don't know how, we don't know why, we don't know who.
So then why is it more acceptable to assume the official story is correct than it is to question it?

shootemindehead

04-Aug-2012, 02:11 PM

babomb

04-Aug-2012, 10:26 PM

Clearly, that's not the case though. We know who, because Holmes is in custody and caught at the scene. We know the method, because they were siezed on site too. All that's unclear is the exact way he did it and why. Well, to be fair, we know that Holmes is in custody and charged with the crime. And we know that there were firearms found on scene, and we know there are allegations that the firearms belonged to Holmes. Whether that's truly the case, technically, remains to be seen.
Don't interpret that to mean that I think Holmes is innocent. If the evidence that's being claimed is legitimate, then it's pretty damning. But we don't know this for sure yet. It appears to be the case, but looks can be deceiving.
If we're dismissing witness testimony on the basis you provided in an earlier post, then what we think we know about the situation is all speculation.
There's no basis to dismiss witness claims that Holmes was motioning to someone outside the exit door, while at the same time accepting all the other witness claims without question.

shootemindehead

04-Aug-2012, 10:54 PM

Ah, but I didn't say that one should dismiss ALL eyewitness testimony, but it should be checked and cross-referenced thoroughly. Plus, the ace in the hole, in this case is Holmes himself.

When the perp is caught at the scene after giving up with his weaponry intact, it's pretty clear that the "who" and "what-with" points are covered fairly well. It's a matter of time before the rest falls into place, as Holmes is in custody.

babomb

06-Aug-2012, 03:10 AM

If any more details come out. Holmes isn't talking, in fact he's claiming amnesia for the event.
So it's probably just on to the next one:Gunman kills 7, wounds 3 in Wisconsin shooting (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/05/us-usa-wisconsin-shooting-idUSBRE8740FP20120805)

I also came across this compilation of details that offers some new information I wasn't aware of.
Anyone actually interested in knowing the truth rather than just blaming guns should read it. By that i don't mean that everything in the related .doc is truth, I mean if you're interested in the larger picture than what the mainstream media thinks you should know/think, then this offers some things not talked about. Even those of you who have nothing but the utmost faith in the fact that nothing is off about this and the blame lies in the availability of inanimate objects(however it is you come to that conclusion with what little information is trickling out?) should give it a read. Maybe even give it a go as to why it's all bullshit, as you would inevitably say, even though you know nothing more than anyone else.
http://www.facebook.com/TruthAboutJamesEagenHolmes/posts/509732582376567

-- -------- Post added at 09:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:01 PM ----------

Ah, but I didn't say that one should dismiss ALL eyewitness testimony, but it should be checked and cross-referenced thoroughly. Plus, the ace in the hole, in this case is Holmes himself.

When the perp is caught at the scene after giving up with his weaponry intact, it's pretty clear that the "who" and "what-with" points are covered fairly well. It's a matter of time before the rest falls into place, as Holmes is in custody. I don't know where you get your faith in such a corrupt system? Especially when it's not even the one you live in? But ignorance is bliss I guess.

It's also odd how you are against the private ownership of firearms, but your name here on the board is "shootemindehead" and your avatar is of a man pointing a gun at someone. It's starting to seem as if firearms are just things you see on TV or in videogames, and have absolutely no place in your real life. Which would explain alot...

shootemindehead

06-Aug-2012, 03:43 AM

babomb

06-Aug-2012, 04:59 AM

I would have little faith in any of your nations systems. In fact, I have little faith in your nation to be perfectly honest. While I like America and Americans in general, I believe your nation is one of the most corrupt and rapacious on the planet, governed by impersonal corporate interests and built on lies and blood from the very beginning. I also believe your entire political system needs to be gutted, torn down and rebuilt, because it has sunk into the quagmire of elitism, cronyism and oligarchy that excludes the majority of the people. Where once, America may have been on the right track, it has long since ceased to be shining beacon of "democracy" of which it so proudly beats its chest in proclamation. I would dare say that it has never been a democracy in the truest sense of the word and, by and large, uses the very word as a smokescreen.
Well, we definitely see eye to eye in that regard! I think the majority of Americans would also agree. So maybe you just don't understand the depth to which your statements ring true. Because that's the basis of my extreme distrust of this nations leaders. The mainstream media is owned by these same elitists. And the thing they fear the most is an uprising of the people. So they'll go to any length to make that difficult. That's why they basically blacked out all coverage of the Occupy movement except stories of bad behavior on the part of the protesters, and extreme measures taken by police. As part of their fear campaign. They effectively influenced the support for the movement by creating indifference to it in the minds of the masses, and scared people who might have become a part of it with threats of police brutality.
This is happening again right now in relation to the police brutality in California. And they know they can't contain it indefinitely. They control the information here. The only thing they don't have absolute control over is the internet. So to compensate for that lack of control they wage a disinformation campaign. To discredit people and ideas.
Which is why they simply can not be allowed to institute an assault weapons ban or any other ban on firearms. Because that's the last line of defense that we the people have against them. A ban on them will only effect the average person. The corporate thug armies such as Blackwater will not be effected by the ban. The elites have alot to gain by disarming the people.
And it's not that we think that restrictions on firearms mean all out banning of private ownership. It's that we understand the way they work. Things like that come in small steps. When you give them an inch they inevitably take a mile. They don't take away all your rights at once. They chip away at them little by little. And it's always in the form of good intention.
So while it seems that by saying citizens don't need assault weapons you're making a logical distinction on the safety of that citizenry, you're also ignoring the bigger picture.
It seems as if Americans who oppose any firearms restrictions are seen as backwater hicks with no teeth and no education. This is another distinction shaped by the mainstream media. Several people in this thread alone have made the "y'all aint takin our guns" analogy, which is not an accurate portrayal of the reality of the situation. Some of you guys think it is, because that's the picture that's been painted for you by the media, and since you aren't here to see the reality of it that idea runs unopposed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEXn1RHRYok

Sammich

06-Aug-2012, 07:04 AM

It looks there might be a hat trick in store.

Movie theather- Colorado
Church- Wisconsin
Next: Another "gun free" zone. Shopping mall, amusement park or elementary school with kids being the primary target.

Followed by the usual ghouls waving around the bloody shirts with the sole intent of furthering their political agendas.

rgc2005

06-Aug-2012, 07:48 AM

Perhaps Westboro

It looks there might be a hat trick in store.

Movie theather- Colorado
Church- Wisconsin
Next: Another "gun free" zone. Shopping mall, amusement park or elementary school with kids being the primary target.

Followed by the usual ghouls waving around the bloody shirts with the sole intent of furthering their political agendas.

babomb

06-Aug-2012, 09:31 AM

wayzim

06-Aug-2012, 12:30 PM

It's interesting to note that on that facebook page I linked there's a link to another site that's the personal ad page of an Actor named Corbin Kent from Aurora CO . He looks exactly like the witness in the theater shooting named Corbin Date, or as he's been called also Corbin Dayton.
Yet another amazing coincidence.
I think Lou is right about having to redefine the term at this point.

Or - since clearly everything Old is New again ( perhaps never went away in the first place ; ) ) this group said it best?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sk3sURDS4IA

Way Zim

babomb

07-Aug-2012, 09:55 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zYCurbSAsd4

Same situation. Multiple shooters reported by witnesses, but official story claims lone gunmen. Gas released.

LouCipherr

08-Aug-2012, 08:15 PM

Eyewitness testimony is notoriously bunkum most of the time though, Lou. Studies have shown that people tend to spend more time "filling in the gaps" of didn't happen, than remembering what actually happened. Also, people will go with concensus generally.

And I agree with your statement, shootem, but that witness testimony I posted - what was curious is not how he was 'filling in the gaps' so-to-speak. What got me is the way he spoke. The language he used. That's not a "normal" way of speaking, it was unnatural. He sounded like he was reading a script that was handed to him. Can you disagree with that sentiment after listening to that clip? "casualties" instead of "dead" or "killed" or whatever. The whole "when my girlfriend arrived on location" statement was a dead giveaway.

Eventually, we're going to find there's a lot more to this story than just one orange-haired idiot shooting a bunch of people. There's so much conflicting information out there, how can anyone believe the "official" story on this? Even the witnesses testimonies disagree with the "official" story.

shootemindehead

09-Aug-2012, 07:06 PM

Lou, I've met people who speak using ridiculous terminology in the most mundane of conversation, usually in an effort to sound more intelligent than they actually are. But using "casualties" or "deceased", instead of "dead" isn't really that much of a departure, is it? The "My friend had informed me that she had arrived on location" is odd indeed, but I don't think it's a definite indication of a larger involvement, or a false flag op, or whatever.

"Official" stories should ALWAYS be taken with a pinch of salt, but there is nothing going on here, other than a nutjob with easy access to guns blowing a lot of people away at a movie show.

It'll be interesting to see what's going to come out in the trial.

babomb

10-Aug-2012, 08:26 AM

It'll be interesting to see what's going to come out in the trial. Saw on the news earlier that the judge issued such an extensive gag order that bars ANY information being released on Mr. Holmes, by all parties involved.:rolleyes:

The story that aired seconds before it was about a man that ordered an HDTV from the internet, and somewhere in shipping the label worked it's way off the box and became attached to a different box, and the box that ended up being delivered was an AR15 assault rifle. Delivered to Washington, where AR15's just happen to be illegal to posses. LMFAO!!!!! Right....:rolleyes:

Neil

10-Aug-2012, 09:04 AM

Victim suing theatre, doctors and WB!?!?

According to TMZ, Brown thinks the theater is partially responsible for what happened because there was no alarm on the emergency door Holmes propped open and came back in through. He thinks the doctors are responsible because they didn’t keep any tabs on Holmes, and most absurdly of all, he thinks The Dark Knight Rises is responsible because many of the victims thought the shooting was part of the movie. Here’s what his attorney had to say…

"Somebody has to be responsible for the rampant violence that is shown today."

To answer the lawyer's point, yes, there is, and he's the one who shot everyone and is now locked up!

http://www.cinemablend.com/pop/Dark-Knight-Rises-Victim-Looking-Suing-Warner-Bros-44986.html

shootemindehead

10-Aug-2012, 01:01 PM

Feckin lawyers...

Pity it wasn't a special "lawyers only" midnight showing of Batman that Holmes attacked.

I don't think anyone would be batting an eyelid.

babomb

11-Aug-2012, 01:15 PM

Victim suing theatre, doctors and WB!?!?

To answer the lawyer's point, yes, there is, and he's the one who shot everyone and is now locked up!

http://www.cinemablend.com/pop/Dark-Knight-Rises-Victim-Looking-Suing-Warner-Bros-44986.html So now there's gonna be an even bigger push for security at theaters, a push for doctors to have more power over patients, and theaters will end up using more discretion about the violent films they show and when they show them. Since so many Americans let others think for them, alot of people will see the above as the problems in their actual context. Knowing the liberal media, the ongoing court battle to sue these people/places will be shown constantly alongside footage of the theater and the bloody clothing cut off the victims.
It's sickening.

childofgilead

12-Aug-2012, 08:30 AM

Well folks, it's been real..in fact, a little too real..think I'm going to have to take a step away from the computer and enjoy the real world for a few months..nothing personal against anyone on here, but the whole gun control/conspiracy debate has just overloaded my palate one too many times.

Honestly, I used to enjoy thinking about stuff like that..how you'd always see Freemason cornerstones in old buildings, wondering what it all meant. Then I grew up and realized that it wasn't some huge conspiracy..at least..I don't think it was..:shifty:

But after getting older and having to worry about real life and getting the bills paid, I just don't have the time to deal with that bullshit. *maybe that's the point? :|

I do think that this political season is going to be one of the worst this country has ever seen. The choices are between a borderline socialist flip flopper and Barack Obama. heh heh.

Anybody who votes straight down a party line is a sheep. That's all I have to say about it.

All mass shootings take place in gun free zones. I don't know what to make of that, perhaps somebody with more brainpower than myself can figure that shit out.

But I do know that the Second Amendment is as important to my life and well-being as any of the others. I value it just as much as the rest and am as unwilling to give it up as I would be the First or Tenth or whichever you choose. These are the rights that the founders of my country knew would be the building blocks of freedom and the right to a fruitful life. I don't have guns to kill anybody, I have them because I enjoy the engineering that went into their design and manufacture, I enjoy the exacting tolerances and I like things exploding in my hands and throwing bits of metal at pop cans and paper plates.

I enjoy my Jeep as well. But I obey the laws I find asinine, such as seatbelt laws, not because I would get a ticket, but because it's common sense. I don't wish to fly out of my windshield at 70 miles per hour if I get into a wreck on the interstate. I value my life too much not to follow that law. However, I don't think that my government has the right to make a personal choice like that for me.

Nor is it their business if I smoke a cigarette or have a large soda with a burger and fries. It's not their business what programs I watch or what kind of porn I prefer.

I pay my county, state and federal taxes on everything I buy, on my vehicle and home.

I consider myself a fairly well adjusted almost 30 year old dude who loves his girl, his pets and his mom. I don't hunt, have never danced around a bonfire in ill-fitting overalls while sodomy took place and even have multiracial and several homosexual friends.

I think disliking someone based on their skin color or education level is tantamount to masturbating in a public street: shameful and embarassing.

I dunno..I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't hurt anyone with my choices. I don't view my rights as any better than anyone elses. But your civil rights end where mine begin and vice-versa. I will respect you and yours if you do the same. If you don't, then you better at least have the courtesy to run, because I need the exercise.

I'm deathly afraid of losing sovereignty. I don't think my government has the right to tell anyone else how to live, and I'd like the same in return. I don't think it's fair for the EU to bail out Greece, nor do I think it's fair that my taxes go to corrupt politicians for their little porkbarrel projects and kickbacks for their campaign donors.

I just don't feel up to the ongoing discussion anymore, guys. The Walking Dead just seems..laughable compared to everything else going on in my life right now and frankly, I've watched the Romero movies so many times that I'm burned to the nubs on them.

I don't want to dredge up bad memories and worse feelings by expressing my views on an issue that is as important to me as my right to vote or be guaranteed due process.

Rights are eroded over time. They can be taken away in an instant or chipped away at over periods of years. It's okay in this country to vote without having to show ANY photo identification proving that you are who you say you are, but it's not okay for me to own weapons from the second World War as a collector and enthusiast?

I dunno man..if that's the sort of country you think is admirable, I think I may just start my own or something.