Religious gun nut kills Batman moviegoers

[mistermack]

It's only by recognising past failures that you can amend things for the future. It's not about playing a game of 'what if?'

I think you're taking the piss, joining the trolls. That's another gone.

[Elessarina]

It's only by recognising past failures that you can amend things for the future. It's not about playing a game of 'what if?'

You can't plan for this kind of thing though. What would you have? Security on every door at cinemas? What about schools, supermarkets, concert venues, pubs, shops, people on the streets..libraries?...

[maiforpeace]

Yes. I know he'll find another way or another place. It doesn't rebut what I said though, that if there had of been a person on the door that night this wouldn't of happened. Does it?

That doesn't rebut MY argument that if HE got the job guarding that door, he could have brought much more stuff in. He could have firebombed the place as well.

I just found this...not that this is news, but to those gun supporters, explain the vast difference between murder per capita between the US and the UK. You don't think it has anything to do with the facts that guns are so readily available, and are much more successful at killing on the first pass, than, for example, trying to kill someone with a knife?

Anyway, apparently the real reason this happened is because God is angry about abortion.

[JimC]

If the shooter knew he would draw heavy return fire, would that have stopped him? Maybe, maybe not, but he was, I suspect, fucking nuts, so counter-fire would not have been an issue. However, criminals often use guns to gain an advantage over their victims. If the victims could shoot back there would be less of an advantage.

Well, if "heavy return fire" was going to happen, it would be in America, not Europe or Australia. In cases I have heard about recently, including this one, there seems to be no evidence of armed civilians returning fire, and preventing a massacre (or at least reducing its extent).

This idea of armed civilians saving lives by using their weapons is one of the main arguments used by proponents of the US gun ownership thing, and yet, broadly speaking, it seems to be a myth...

[Warren Dew]

It appears that guns aren't allowed by carried into this cinema, which as far as I know is a right of any private establishment, which is why no one had any. The gunman purchased a ticket then went to the back to an emergency exit and left it propped open so he could return. He then went to his car which he'd parked near this exit to get ready.
Don't quote me on that. My info isn't 100%.

That's how I'm hearing it.

That's consistent with what I know, but how does that jibe with reports that he was upset the movie was sold out, do you know?

[amused]

I am so sorry for the victims of this senseless violence.

Having been a part of some minor productions, I also feel for the film's production crew whose work has been insulted by this. Although the end results are sometimes iffy, the people who work on a film throw their all at it, and obviously don't deserve to have that work negated by something like this.

[Warren Dew]

There's a million other ways to commit mass murder. You will never stop them, while the guns and ammunition are so freely available.

You won't stop them completely, period. Breivik got guns and ammo where they were not freely available, and this guy had explosives he could have used had he not had guns.

[Tero]

Isn't it just as possible to use cleaning products to make a chemical weapon capable of killing a lot of people in a theater?

Disregard for human life seems like the bigger part of the problem.

It's getting harder. Fertilizer has gone a lot to urea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urea#Agriculture
which has no explosive potential as nitrates did. There is an unloading facility here close to downtown that unloads bags of this stuff day and night off barges. I used to walk along the bike path and see the bags on the conveyor.

[Jason]

Yes. I know he'll find another way or another place. It doesn't rebut what I said though, that if there had of been a person on the door that night this wouldn't of happened. Does it?

That doesn't rebut MY argument that if HE got the job guarding that door, he could have brought much more stuff in. He could have firebombed the place as well.

I just found this...not that this is news, but to those gun supporters, explain the vast difference between murder per capita between the US and the UK. You don't think it has anything to do with the facts that guns are so readily available, and are much more successful at killing on the first pass, than, for example, trying to kill someone with a knife?

Socio-economic and cultural differences perhaps? The 'way of the gun' is ingrained in American culture, from the veneration of the frontier days to the worship of the modern day warrior the importance, reliance and impetus is on gun ownership for freedom and security. There are also many subcultures which glorify gun violence as a statement of ultimate virility and counter-culture commitment for the poor, downtrodden and disenfranchised - a way of bucking the system that 'fucked' you.

I think the problem is often misidentified in these debates. The symptom is identified as the illness and guns, gun ownership, proponents and defenders of gun ownership are all vilified unjustly. Guns are not the cause of gun violence. The availability of guns is not the cause of gun violence. The cause of gun violence is largely a fundamental failure of government and society. The reason for the difference in the murder per capita of the UK vs that of the USA is not down to the kinds of implements available to carry out those murders. After all, if your intention is murder a knife is every bit as effective as a gun on an unarmed and unprepared person. Explosives and incendiary devices are just as easily fashioned from readily available chemicals and electronics. The reason for the difference is a fundamental difference in culture and socio-economics. To put it simply, the UK has done a better job of not alienating, disenfranchising and otherwise failing in their duties towards its citizens.

[Jason]

Isn't it just as possible to use cleaning products to make a chemical weapon capable of killing a lot of people in a theater?

Disregard for human life seems like the bigger part of the problem.

It's getting harder. Fertilizer has gone a lot to urea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urea#Agriculture
which has no explosive potential as nitrates did. There is an unloading facility here close to downtown that unloads bags of this stuff day and night off barges. I used to walk along the bike path and see the bags on the conveyor.

Yes, I believe they started switching over in earnest after the Oklahoma bombing?

It's still very easy to whip up some ammonium nitrate with readily available, non-regulated, chemicals.

[Warren Dew]

If the shooter knew he would draw heavy return fire, would that have stopped him? Maybe, maybe not, but he was, I suspect, fucking nuts, so counter-fire would not have been an issue. However, criminals often use guns to gain an advantage over their victims. If the victims could shoot back there would be less of an advantage.

Well, if "heavy return fire" was going to happen, it would be in America, not Europe or Australia. In cases I have heard about recently, including this one, there seems to be no evidence of armed civilians returning fire, and preventing a massacre (or at least reducing its extent).

This idea of armed civilians saving lives by using their weapons is one of the main arguments used by proponents of the US gun ownership thing, and yet, broadly speaking, it seems to be a myth...

I guess you missed my earlier post about the 71 year old man?

Or, heck, there's this one:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162- ... 04083.html

Crimes and murders are prevented all the time here by civilians with guns. The reason you don't see these cases in the international news is that when there does happen to be a civilian with a gun present - which, granted, is not all that often - the would be murderer normally doesn't manage to kill anyone.

[Warren Dew]

I'd like to see the theater chain sued for negligence. They had rules which prevented lawful concealed weapons holders from bring their weapon into the theater. This action potentially cost many people their lives, and the company should be held accountable for it.

He blocked open an exit door and went out to get his stuff..he didn't bring it in with him.

You can't expect movie theaters to search every person coming to watch a movie nor should they in any way be held responsible.

I'd like to see the theater chain sued for negligence. They had rules which prevented lawful concealed weapons holders from bring their weapon into the theater. This action potentially cost many people their lives, and the company should be held accountable for it.

I'm not surprised you would say something that ridiculous being pro gun and/or because you clearly aren't up on the news about this.

How do you propose theatres enforce these rules if someone kicks in a door and comes in the back way? He didn't come in the front door.

Have you guys considered reading and understanding entire posts rather than just responding to what you assume the first sentence said?

Tyrannical was not criticizing the theater for allowing the guy's weapons in - quite the contrary. He was criticizing the theater for having rules against everyone else bringing in guns.

[maiforpeace]

Yes. I know he'll find another way or another place. It doesn't rebut what I said though, that if there had of been a person on the door that night this wouldn't of happened. Does it?

That doesn't rebut MY argument that if HE got the job guarding that door, he could have brought much more stuff in. He could have firebombed the place as well.

I just found this...not that this is news, but to those gun supporters, explain the vast difference between murder per capita between the US and the UK. You don't think it has anything to do with the facts that guns are so readily available, and are much more successful at killing on the first pass, than, for example, trying to kill someone with a knife?

Socio-economic and cultural differences perhaps? The 'way of the gun' is ingrained in American culture, from the veneration of the frontier days to the worship of the modern day warrior the importance, reliance and impetus is on gun ownership for freedom and security. There are also many subcultures which glorify gun violence as a statement of ultimate virility and counter-culture commitment for the poor, downtrodden and disenfranchised - a way of bucking the system that 'fucked' you.

I think the problem is often misidentified in these debates. The symptom is identified as the illness and guns, gun ownership, proponents and defenders of gun ownership are all vilified unjustly. Guns are not the cause of gun violence. The availability of guns is not the cause of gun violence. The cause of gun violence is largely a fundamental failure of government and society. The reason for the difference in the murder per capita of the UK vs that of the USA is not down to the kinds of implements available to carry out those murders. After all, if your intention is murder a knife is every bit as effective as a gun on an unarmed and unprepared person. Explosives and incendiary devices are just as easily fashioned from readily available chemicals and electronics. The reason for the difference is a fundamental difference in culture and socio-economics. To put it simply, the UK
has done a better job of not alienating, disenfranchising and otherwise failing in their duties towards its citizens.

Ouch.

I don't disagree with most of this, and would like to hear back from gun proponents about it, however I disagree about the ease of killing someone. Explosives and incendiary devices are not as easily available as guns, and it's still not as easy to kill someone with a knife. Oh, and another statistic that wasn't included is accidental death...the number of accidental deaths by guns are pretty high as well.

I'd like to see the theater chain sued for negligence. They had rules which prevented lawful concealed weapons holders from bring their weapon into the theater. This action potentially cost many people their lives, and the company should be held accountable for it.

I'm not surprised you would say something that ridiculous being pro gun and/or because you clearly aren't up on the news about this.

How do you propose theatres enforce these rules if someone kicks in a door and comes in the back way? He didn't come in the front door.

Have you guys considered reading and understanding entire posts rather than just responding to what you assume the first sentence said?

Tyrannical was not criticizing the theater for allowing the guy's weapons in - quite the contrary. He was criticizing the theater for having rules against everyone else bringing in guns.

OK, fair enough.

I highly doubt that there was rule placed anywhere in visible sight that people actually knew about, much less followed, and even if there was, what's the penalty for carrying a concealed weapon into the theatre - getting thrown out of it? Do you honestly want to tell me that a person who is carries a concealed weapon around with them in public would actually check their gun at the door, or go back to their car to lock it up?

So it's still a ridiculous statement in my view.

[Warren Dew]

I highly doubt that there was rule placed anywhere in visible sight that people actually knew about, much less followed, and even if there was, what's the penalty for carrying a concealed weapon into the theatre - getting thrown out of it? Do you honestly want to tell me that a person who is carries a concealed weapon around with them in public would actually check their gun at the door, or go back to their car to lock it up?

Most people with concealed carry licenses are highly responsible, lawful people. They respect the theater owner's right to decide the rules about guns on that owner's private property, and they make it their business to know those rules. So yes, absolutely, I think people who normally carried would normally follow that rule.

So it's still a ridiculous statement in my view.

I'm not arguing that Tyrannical is correct; I'd just prefer that people understand what he's saying before considering his statement ridiculous.

[JimC]

Warren Dew wrote:

Crimes and murders are prevented all the time here by civilians with guns. The reason you don't see these cases in the international news is that when there does happen to be a civilian with a gun present - which, granted, is not all that often - the would be murderer normally doesn't manage to kill anyone.

I was referring to attempted massacres like the current example. Can you give me a documented example where an armed civilian shot a would-be mass killer early in his killing spree, thus saving many lives?