Whats going wrong with the world? More shootings

Godfather.

unsung wrote:

I'm laughing when people think that because he had body armor on that shooting him was futile. It'd still be like getting slugged in the chest full swing with a sledgehammer. Maybe not enough to kill him but rest assured he'd go down. It's not like he was bullet proof.

I own many guns, never have I remotely been inclined to use them against a person. However if someone entered my house illegally and was intent on doing harm I surely would not think twice about defending my family.

Gun-free zones don't work, they only allow someone intent on harming others the ability to go about that business without obstruction.

great post !

Godfather.

comebackgirl

comebackgirl wrote:

pandora wrote:

Did you have this stance with Loughner too?

My opinion is mental illness ...
just like I thought with him. He is now a diagnosed schizophrenic under forced treatment.

Yes - I waited until he had a psych eval completed before jumping to any conclusions about his mental health status. It would have been irresponsible of me professionally and personally to proclaim him as mentally ill before a thorough assessment was completed. I'm glad he received a proper diagnosis and is undergoing treatment. That, however, is a rarity in these cases.

I just wanted to add the Loughner, like Seung-Hui Cho also came to the attention of the university counseling center several times and showed a decompensation of mental status over a period of time. I haven't heard anything about that with regard to Holmes, aside from his withdrawal from the Ph.D. program. That could have been a sign of decompensation, or it could have been his narcissistic injury. If the counseling center did have contact with him, they're not revealing that information at this time. If the school had concerns or noted a change in his behavior it's likely that the counseling center would have conducted an outreach to him at some point. Most schools have behavior intervention teams that focus on identifying any potential behavioral concerns, so if there had been a significant change in his behavior, he would have likely been on the radar. There's just not enough information being released at this point to come to any clear conclusions.

JonnyPistachio

unsung wrote:

I'm laughing when people think that because he had body armor on that shooting him was futile. It'd still be like getting slugged in the chest full swing with a sledgehammer. Maybe not enough to kill him but rest assured he'd go down. It's not like he was bullet proof.

I own many guns, never have I remotely been inclined to use them against a person. However if someone entered my house illegally and was intent on doing harm I surely would not think twice about defending my family.

Gun-free zones don't work, they only allow someone intent on harming others the ability to go about that business without obstruction.

Well, I thought putting it into perspective of one person with head to toe body armor, tear gas, four guns, and the element of surprise CLEARLY gives him the upper hand over someone who has zero armor, has their gun in their pocket with the safety on, and is enjoying a movie in the dark. If I had to bet on one, I'd give the guy with the armor the upper hand. :?

And furthermore, there are many, many people who would agree that returning fire in this instance could be more dangerous for other by standards. I'm not saying its impossible, but you might have watched too many movies if you think the hero has a level playing field against a cold blooded, well planned psycho.

cincybearcat

Godfather. wrote:

like I said earlier..gun control is bad politics.

Godfather.

What, you want a free for all?

Shit, too bad all of you weren't born back in the Wild West days, you could really get your kicks.

dignin

unsung wrote:

I'm laughing when people think that because he had body armor on that shooting him was futile. It'd still be like getting slugged in the chest full swing with a sledgehammer. Maybe not enough to kill him but rest assured he'd go down. It's not like he was bullet proof.

I own many guns, never have I remotely been inclined to use them against a person. However if someone entered my house illegally and was intent on doing harm I surely would not think twice about defending my family.

Gun-free zones don't work, they only allow someone intent on harming others the ability to go about that business without obstruction.

Judging by this post alone America has a huge gun problem. Your post reminded me of this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zqh6Ap9ldTs

Thirty Bills Unpaid

pandora wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Pandora,

I re-read my posts... and I have not found anything in them that looks like a personal attack on you as a person (other than a reference to one of your posts where you make a veiled attempt at dignifying yourself as 'slightly more enlightened' than those of us who do not share the same level of compassion for the offender).

I referred to your timing, your position, and made a small tongue-in-cheek comment about your formatting (you made a similar comment earlier with your 'big letters' comment to Jose... so I had assumed comments such as these would be fair for all. No?).

Excuse- Cause... It's the same thing. Don't get stuck on semantics. A pre-meditated murder on a large scale would obviously suggest that there's something wrong with this guy... but who cares what underlying cause it might be- this act is flat out inexcusable. Not worthy of pity.

"So far off target?" No. No, I think I'm bang on here, but I won't pat myself on the back. It's pretty easy to be on target with this sad case. Regardless, as I said in my previous post... you're welcome to feel any way you want- it's your right; however, if you make an opinon public on this forum and others like it... you should be prepared to be challenged on some of the things you say.

Yours was no challenge you assumed ridiculous things ... challenge ... my arse!

cause...
Make (something) happen

excuse...
Attempt to lessen the blame attaching to (a fault or offense); seek to defend or justify.

No not the same thing :fp:

what makes you think I am excusing his behavior good lord it is empathy not condoning
nor excusing.

empathy...
the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

You didn't answer my questions about mental illness ...

Have you ever known anyone close to you with schizophrenia?
Have you seen results from the disease?
Have you seen trauma caused by the disease?
If this was a war vet would you accept his insanity better?


why?

Because I see how you operate. You're over on the Trayvon Martin thread doing the same thing- championing for the criminal... making them out to be the victim.

I've already said my piece in this discussion and anytime I add something to it... you go back and speak of something I've clarified for you (ie. 'semantics' with cause and excuse). I get the feeling you like to do a lot of talking and not a lot of listening.

By the way... great use of the head slapping emoticon. Again, a veiled method to hoist yourself above people without actually coming out and saying, "Oh dear. Tsk. Why do I even bother with you simple people?"

Godfather.

cincybearcat wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

like I said earlier..gun control is bad politics.

Godfather.

What, you want a free for all?

Shit, too bad all of you weren't born back in the Wild West days, you could really get your kicks.

there was no rout 66 back in the wild west
that was from a comment I had made earlier in this thread that politions don't want any of this gun control mess right now with the election coming up, there are more Americans in favor of gun ownership and the 2nd ammendment then those aginst it, I would think even obama can see that.....maybe

Godfather.

Sludge Factory

JonnyPistachio wrote:

unsung wrote:

I'm laughing when people think that because he had body armor on that shooting him was futile. It'd still be like getting slugged in the chest full swing with a sledgehammer. Maybe not enough to kill him but rest assured he'd go down. It's not like he was bullet proof.

I own many guns, never have I remotely been inclined to use them against a person. However if someone entered my house illegally and was intent on doing harm I surely would not think twice about defending my family.

Gun-free zones don't work, they only allow someone intent on harming others the ability to go about that business without obstruction.

Well, I thought putting it into perspective of one person with head to toe body armor, tear gas, four guns, and the element of surprise CLEARLY gives him the upper hand over someone who has zero armor, has their gun in their pocket with the safety on, and is enjoying a movie in the dark. If I had to bet on one, I'd give the guy with the armor the upper hand. :?

And furthermore, there are many, many people who would agree that returning fire in this instance could be more dangerous for other by standards. I'm not saying its impossible, but you might have watched too many movies if you think the hero has a level playing field against a cold blooded, well planned psycho.

Yeah, the guy with the armor had an upper hand, but you are proving the point that he had even more of an upper hand than a person who has zero armor and no gun. If someone actually had a gun, in their pocket with the safety on, while enjoying the movie in the dark, that person would still have more of a chance than the person next to him who just had their hands in their empty pockets.

JonnyPistachio

Sludge Factory wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

unsung wrote:

I'm laughing when people think that because he had body armor on that shooting him was futile. It'd still be like getting slugged in the chest full swing with a sledgehammer. Maybe not enough to kill him but rest assured he'd go down. It's not like he was bullet proof.

I own many guns, never have I remotely been inclined to use them against a person. However if someone entered my house illegally and was intent on doing harm I surely would not think twice about defending my family.

Gun-free zones don't work, they only allow someone intent on harming others the ability to go about that business without obstruction.

Well, I thought putting it into perspective of one person with head to toe body armor, tear gas, four guns, and the element of surprise CLEARLY gives him the upper hand over someone who has zero armor, has their gun in their pocket with the safety on, and is enjoying a movie in the dark. If I had to bet on one, I'd give the guy with the armor the upper hand. :?

And furthermore, there are many, many people who would agree that returning fire in this instance could be more dangerous for other by standards. I'm not saying its impossible, but you might have watched too many movies if you think the hero has a level playing field against a cold blooded, well planned psycho.

Yeah, the guy with the armor had an upper hand, but you are proving the point that he had even more of an upper hand than a person who has zero armor and no gun. If someone actually had a gun, in their pocket with the safety on, while enjoying the movie in the dark, that person would still have more of a chance than the person next to him who just had their hands in their empty pockets.

Perhaps. Then again, that innocent person who draws their weapon becomes more of a target for the psycho with four guns and armor. So, I'll just disagree because they are drawing attention to themselves and they are severely out-gunned. So, more of a chance than the unarmed person sitting next to them...maybe, maybe not.

JonnyPistachio

"We're different than other cultures," said Dudley Brown, executive director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, which advocates for firearms owners' rights. "We do allow Americans to possess the accoutrements that our military generally has."

:fp:

He didn't see anything unusual about many of Holmes' alleged purchases.

"If I only had 6,000 rounds for my AR-15s, I'd literally feel naked," Brown said. Then he totaled up Holmes' firearms purchases: "Two handguns, a shotgun and a rifle. That's the average male in Colorado."

But some involved in the trade are troubled by how easily Holmes stocked up for his alleged rampage.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/ap/ap/crim ... nal/nP2Gc/

g under p

pandora wrote:

g under p wrote:

pandora wrote:

Thank you very much I will compose my posts as I see fit
you are free of course to not read them if you find them that troubling.

A poem can always do a heart well I might add.

So you conclude I am not outraged at the loss of life...
that I am not sad and angry... how do you come to this conclusion?

is this because I can also show empathy for the person committing the crime?

It is unusual for me to do so but it is so very obvious he himself is a victim also.

I think your presumptions of me and what I think of child molesters,
DUI's or criminals preying on other human beings for their own gain,
are very telling of you.
Is seems you are assuming much of me with knowing little, wouldn't you say?
Not really good debate form... assuming of others.

You would be so very wrong in all cases / examples you have given.

Good for you that you can show empathy, you appear to have a very big heart. My question to you Pandora would be....would you show the same empathy if your grandchild or son or husband was in that theatre and was killed by this shooter?

Peace

Yes he has a mental illness, victims of his shooting spree have empathy.

It is my opinion that he is not an evil person seeking personal gratification or gain,
it is my opinion he is sick.

I would be broken by the fact that he was unable to get help before
he killed and wounded. That my loved one could have been saved if only...

I know all to well in my personal life experience that this is the cause
for so much pain and suffering ...
the inability to get help until after violence.

Pandora...

Yes he has a mental illness, victims of his shooting spree have empathy.

Is this a yes to my question that you would have empathy for the shooter if he had killed your son in that movie theatre? In your opinion he has a mental illness and is NOT evil without a proper mental evaluation done at this time. I hope you have EXPERIENCED 100's of these cases in order to come up with such a quick opinionated decision.

victims of his shooting spree have empathy.

May I ask how the hell do you know this....is this ALL of the victims or just a few? Have you heard or seen interviews of the the victims to come up with yet another opinion?

I would be broken by the fact that he was unable to get help before
he killed and wounded. That my loved one could have been saved if only...

I know all to well in my personal life experience that this is the cause
for so much pain and suffering ...
the inability to get help until after violence.

Again, how do you know he was trying to getting help...did you read that somewhere, was that info in a previous evaluation if so please produce such an eval. I think he was far more concern about getting his ammo, guns and setting his pre-plans for this shooting spree than ever having any thoughts of getting mental help.

So it appears what you might be saying there is that he has found relief from his apparent despair by going out planning and executing a killing spree in order to get the much needed mental help you feel he needs BEFORE a proper mental eval. That appears to be somewhat tragic and backwards but that's your opinion.

My experience in mental illness is just a short time working at Glenside Psychiatric Hospital just outside of Boston in Jamaica, Mass. I worked in all three wards locked (much more interesting and focused place to work...a place we worked on the worst psychiatric cases) unlocked ward and thevoluntary\involuntary ward. I hope you can follow up on a few of my concerns.

Peace

Fifi_Ireland

I think it is easier for people to accept this type of crime if a mental illness is involved but it leads to total stigmatisation of those with mental illnesses. Most people with untreated mental illnesses are unable to help themselves get out of bed or interact with the outside world let alone plot and carry out this type of an attack in a rational way.

I note that no one ever brings mental illness into shootings carried out in gang attacks or drive by shootings but its an automatic assumption when something like this happens it must be down to mental illness. There doesnt appear to be anything in this guys past to indicate a mental illness and the way in which the attack was plotted and carried out would seem to indicate it wasnt due to a temporary break with reality triggered by an event!

It waits to be seen what led to this and maybe he will be found to have some form of illness, but I do believe there are just some people out there who are in fact evil. He may or may not be one of them!

Sludge Factory

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Perhaps. Then again, that innocent person who draws their weapon becomes more of a target for the psycho with four guns and armor. So, I'll just disagree because they are drawing attention to themselves and they are severely out-gunned. So, more of a chance than the unarmed person sitting next to them...maybe, maybe not.

Well, you presume that the main attacker here has eyes on all people at all times and, as many others have already pointed out, all the while in a dark and smoke filled environment. This whole thread is filled with suppositions like this and against this but the fact remains that if someone is able to counter an attacker on a more equal playing field, that person has a better chance than one who is on a completely unlevel playing field. In my mind, if someone had a gun they would not have been completely equal, but moreso than someone who did not.

comebackgirl

Fifi_Ireland wrote:

I think it is easier for people to accept this type of crime if a mental illness is involved but it leads to total stigmatisation of those with mental illnesses. Most people with untreated mental illnesses are unable to help themselves get out of bed or interact with the outside world let alone plot and carry out this type of an attack in a rational way.

I note that no one ever brings mental illness into shootings carried out in gang attacks or drive by shootings but its an automatic assumption when something like this happens it must be down to mental illness. There doesnt appear to be anything in this guys past to indicate a mental illness and the way in which the attack was plotted and carried out would seem to indicate it wasnt due to a temporary break with reality triggered by an event!

It waits to be seen what led to this and maybe he will be found to have some form of illness, but I do believe there are just some people out there who are in fact evil. He may or may not be one of them!

Very well said - and great point about other types of shootings.

When someone is psychotic or having a break with reality, it's usually very noticeable to the people around them. Their appearance changes, they have trouble holding conversations and following through on tasks, it will come out in their writings, they often become fixated on a concern or issue, people can generally tell something seems "off." I have one student that just gets a look in her eye and her whole appearance becomes disheveled. I can tell her mental status the minute she walks in the door. In my experience professors do a pretty good job of identifying these concerns, they're often the first to notice them, and to try to connect students to services. I'm interested to see if the school has any more information on his most recent functioning. Like I said, his withdrawal from the Ph.D. program could have been evidence of his decompensation, but there's not enough information about his yet.

FrankieG

I dindn't read most of this thread, but I think it's worth noting that the present day media has allowed the exposure of these types of events to be heard around the world. If shootings happened 100 years ago, only a certain group of people would know about it. It seems like it's more prevailant now, but that just might be because we all hear about every single case.

It is very sad and when I heard about it i was very rattled..

JonnyPistachio

Sludge Factory wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Perhaps. Then again, that innocent person who draws their weapon becomes more of a target for the psycho with four guns and armor. So, I'll just disagree because they are drawing attention to themselves and they are severely out-gunned. So, more of a chance than the unarmed person sitting next to them...maybe, maybe not.

Well, you presume that the main attacker here has eyes on all people at all times and, as many others have already pointed out, all the while in a dark and smoke filled environment. This whole thread is filled with suppositions like this and against this but the fact remains that if someone is able to counter an attacker on a more equal playing field, that person has a better chance than one who is on a completely unlevel playing field. In my mind, if someone had a gun they would not have been completely equal, but moreso than someone who did not.

I get that, and it makes sense to a degree. but when assessing the factors (tear gas, chaos, four guns and body armor) involved in this shooting, I think more people with guns could've been a bad recipe..but you're right, these are all just guesses, so it doesn't really matter.

I just think there are many other factors (the problems and motives) that could be looked at before we throw MORE guns into the equation. For example: he bought an AR-15 rifle, which had been outlawed under the assault weapon ban in 1994. But that prohibition expired in 2004 and Congress, in a nod to the political clout of gun enthusiasts, did not renew it.

ComeToTX

Even if this guy was mentally ill he would have to choose to get help. He attended multiple universities that I'm pretty sure offered some type of free health care for students. You can't make people seek help so it would be nice to keep them away from anything that can kill 100 people in a matter of minutes and be purchased legally.

PJ_Soul

pandora wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Pandora,

I re-read my posts... and I have not found anything in them that looks like a personal attack on you as a person (other than a reference to one of your posts where you make a veiled attempt at dignifying yourself as 'slightly more enlightened' than those of us who do not share the same level of compassion for the offender).

I referred to your timing, your position, and made a small tongue-in-cheek comment about your formatting (you made a similar comment earlier with your 'big letters' comment to Jose... so I had assumed comments such as these would be fair for all. No?).

Excuse- Cause... It's the same thing. Don't get stuck on semantics. A pre-meditated murder on a large scale would obviously suggest that there's something wrong with this guy... but who cares what underlying cause it might be- this act is flat out inexcusable. Not worthy of pity.
Yours was no challenge you assumed ridiculous things ... challenge ... my arse!

cause...
Make (something) happen

excuse...
Attempt to lessen the blame attaching to (a fault or offense); seek to defend or justify.

No not the same thing :fp:

what makes you think I am excusing his behavior good lord it is empathy not condoning
nor excusing.

empathy...
the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

You didn't answer my questions about mental illness ...

Have you ever known anyone close to you with schizophrenia?
Have you seen results from the disease?
Have you seen trauma caused by the disease?
If this was a war vet would you accept his insanity better?


why?

I'll take a s tab at it.


Have you ever known anyone close to you with schizophrenia?
Have you seen results from the disease?
Have you seen trauma caused by the disease?
If this was a war vet would you accept his insanity better?


Yes, my uncle.
Yes, he was sick with that disease and never.hurt anyone physically, even while off medication.
Yes, obviously, his family was traumatized constantantly by the fact that he had this disease.
No, why in the hell would a vet with schizophrenia vs a non-vet with schizophrenia make a difference? You're not talking about ptsd here (plus a vet would never be a schizophrenic, the military doesn't allow it and would know).

Most importantly, why ate you talking about schizophrenia??? There is no indication whatsoever that he has this disease. Schizophrenic people are not lucid enough during times of mania to plan what he did. You have no idea what his motives were, but I can pretty much guarantee you that he didn't have schizophrenia.

I'd just like to inform you that plenty of people here have as much or more knowledge.of and experience with mental illness than you do, and really wish you would stop acting like you know something tha others don't. All you have that others don't here is blinders on, as per usual.

Godfather.

In the wake of Aurora’s tragic ‘Dark Knight Rises' screening massacre, the entertainment industry has been abuzz with speculation and concern about the safety of moviegoers and how this could impact the theater industry long-term.

Stephen Galloway, The Hollywood Reporter’s Executive Features Editor, tells FOX411’s Pop Tarts column that incident will likely cause theater owners to debate stepping up security – which would in turn impact ticket prices, and that in turn could affect movie theater stock.

Meanwhile, Thelma Adams, Yahoo! Movies contributing editor questioned why all cinema guests can’t be “bag-checked and wanded” the same way critics and the press are prior to advanced screenings.

But such measures come at a cost, and Hollywood movie producer Mark Joseph is not convinced that cinema patrons will be willing to pay even more to see a movie, even if that does translate to an added feeling of security.

“You can never guarantee safety and movie tickets are already too high,” he said. “There will be efforts to ban costumes, check bags and increase security but in three months it will be back to normal.”

However, leading crisis management expert, Gene Grabowski of Levick Strategic Communications, argues that the latest tragedy will have a permanent effect on the once simple adventure of going to the theater.

“Parents are very concerned that their children are being frightened by news reports and so business will likely drop of for a while,” he explained. “Many theaters, especially those showing movies with violence, will be equipped with metal detectors. The major theater chains will certainly enforce these restrictions across the country in order to protect against copycat incidents and to protect against lawsuits.”

And it seems truly passionate, costume-wearing movie goers will have their cinema experience taken down a notch with the possible enforcement of a long-term no-costume policy, given that shooting suspect James Holmes reportedly wore an elaborate assassin-like outfit complete with a ballistic helmet and gas mask to the screening. He also dyed his hair red and later referred to himself as “The Joker” when taken into custody.

“We will not allow any guests into our theaters in costumes that make other guests feel uncomfortable and we will not permit face-covering masks or fake weapons inside our buildings,” Ryan Noonan, AMC Director of Public Relations, said in a statement. “If you don’t like it, they will give you a refund.”

The representative also noted that the prominent cinema chain had no plans to alter its show schedules, but are working with local law enforcement agencies, landlords and local security teams nationwide to “provide the safest environment possible for guests,” and a spokesperson for the National Association of Theater Owners concurred that members were in the process of reviewing security procedures.

“It’s not unlike the ramped-up security in schools across the country after Columbine, and the increase of security at airports after 9/11. It’s just what needs to be done right now,” Jami Philbrick, Managing Editor of movie news site iamRogue.com. “The effect this all has on the theater industry is the true question. With the advent of HD TVs, Blu-ray, Netflix and especially VOD, the theater industry was already in trouble … and this could make it worse.”

However, veteran Hollywood entertainment and pop culture reporter Scott Huver, said too many stringent changes could turn away patrons in the long-term and that clearly wouldn’t be good for the industry. “

As a nation we must be careful before being too reactionary and implementing measures that do more to impinge our personal freedoms than they do to ensure public safety,” he added. “Some things as fast and simple as a bag and coat check might be an acceptable price that patrons are willing to pay to feel more secure, but ultimately moviegoers may be more likely to accept that sometimes the bad things that occur are beyond reason and control, and attempts to guard against them aren’t worth the cost of every day liberties.”



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/20 ... z21T4cqE9o

pandora

dignin wrote:

pandora wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

What I'm saying is that we should be cautious about casting our opinions as fact when we have limited information at this point. It's dangerous because it adds to the stigma and it can damage the investigation and prosecution. We don't know if he was a victim of mental illness. We also don't know what the mother knew. We've heard trickles of information that people are extrapolating from, but there's been nothing concrete. I absolutely agree with you that if he is in fact mentally ill he should have access to mental health treatment and punishment for his actions. I'm not debating that. Of course I'm an advocate of better access to mental health treatment! It's sort of my livelihood I know it's astonishing, but most people who commit these acts are not psychotic. There is often some depression, but we know that doesn't spur this kind of violence. Often the biggest factor is a highly narcissistic person who suffers some sort of narcissistic wound (i.e. a romantic rejection, firing from a job, etc) who is devoid of empathy and wants to exact revenge. Sometimes that may be combined with a mental health diagnosis, but the mental illness is usually the lesser factor. Even though Seung-Hui Cho had some diagnosable mental illness, a narcissistic injury also seemed to be the triggering factor for him, even leaving a note stating "You made me do it." I've heard some info that points to that in this case, but I would definitely want to hear some more information before coming to any conclusion.

Did you have this stance with Loughner too?

My opinion is mental illness ...
just like I thought with him. He is now a diagnosed schizophrenic under forced treatment.

Sounds like comebackgirl has SCIENCE and EXPERTISE to back her up Pandora, not opinion. I think you may be out of your element in this argument. Lets see what the professionals have to say after evaluation before we judge this mans state of mind.

I am a layman giving my opinion based on life experience ...
never claimed anything different. Gee ... it's what most here are doing.

Our experience as a society is telling many of us that this man has mental problems,
just heard an expert on radio news saying the exact same. I guess that woman has expertise,
science and experience enough to give an opinion other than let's wait and see.