Batman massacre: People killed at Dark Knight premiere

[babomb]

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]

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... which can do this... ...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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? If as Sartre stated our actions can only have meaning in the mirror our fellow human beings hold out to us, then yes 'L'enfer c'est les autres' is an existentialist and profoundly pessimistic philosophy that puts this whole discussion in another light. What I dislike most about debates like this is how fast they become anecdotal. 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?

[LouCipherr]

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... 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*

[bassman]

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

[Neil]

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

[babomb]

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---->

[LouCipherr]

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]

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]

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? Also, take a look at this: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_21...cise-at-parker Same day, same scenario. Coincidence?