So many assumptions made, whether on this guy's mental health or the 'if I had a gun, I would have.... ' type issues.
As far as I can see at the moment, this guy seemed to know and understand what he was doing and going to do (amassing such a stock of weapons/ammo over time, etc.) and it was carefully planned. He may seem delusional, a socipath or a psychopath but he was functional. Then again, so was Hitler. Do we feel empathy for him? Probably not.
So, until this guy is fully diagnosed (a mental illness to trigger this massacre, a 'benign' mental illness or no mental illness), I would rather focus my sympathy on the victims and their families.
We happen to have a couple of people here who have sound professional experience of mental illness on this thread - maybe some can take note of what they have to say?
When the 'proper' experts know what makes this guy tick and what happened (of which, by the way, we may never be fully informed), maybe we can then have an informed debate as to what we think could be possible solutions to avoid these massacres in the future. Not the 'if only he had help in time, this wouldn't have happened' type of major assumptions being made and ran away with at the moment. Opinions are fine, we all hae them and discuss them, but let's not present them as 'fact' or 'knowledge'. Oh.. and the families having empathy for the killer of their loved ones? Hmmmm..... They are asking for the death penalty.
Yesterday, driving past the american consultate in Brussels, I noticed the flag was half-mast. Was a bit surprised but thought it may have to do with the deaths of soldiers in Afghanistan. Today, I went to a military base and the flag was half-mast again. Thought the same thing (after all, a military base - honouring their dead). But I asked - and it was half-mast for the victims of this massacre. Honouring the victims - not finding excuses for their death and their killer.
I too have heard so many assumptions of this man...
A cold blooded killer who does not value life that should lose his own.
The same was said of Giffords shooting and indeed that killer is now diagnosed
as a schizophrenic and receiving forced treatments in prison.
I hope the bloodlust for this killer is not to the point that he will not receive the same
fairness if found to be mentally ill.
The interviews I saw were with victims Friday those in the theatre who escaped
and yes they had empathy also for the gunman . Perhaps because they thought
he was deranged and the way he waited for police. Very illogical move to wait on police.
I am against the death penalty and am wondering if indeed all the victims will want that
as time goes on.
As far as opinions we all have them and they are based in our experiences.
For me mental illness is pretty well understood, well enough to give an opinion,
at least as well as the those who think he just deserves to die and who totally
discounts mental illness and that it can be the cause of his behavior.
We must be watching different things. I haven't seen any empathy from victims. Just shock, anger and sadness.
Yes. That's the second time you've just casually tossed that out there. And, for the second time I'm calling bullshit.
It's the Guns – But We All Know, It's Not Really the Guns... a note from Michael Moore
Tuesday, July 24th, 2012
Friends,
Since Cain went nuts and whacked Abel, there have always been those humans who, for one reason or another, go temporarily or permanently insane and commit unspeakable acts of violence. There was the Roman Emperor Tiberius, who during the first century A.D. enjoyed throwing victims off a cliff on the Mediterranean island of Capri. Gilles de Rais, a French knight and ally of Joan of Arc during the middle ages, went cuckoo-for-Cocoa Puffs one day and ended up murdering hundreds of children. Just a few decades later Vlad the Impaler, the inspiration for Dracula, was killing people in Transylvania in numberless horrifying ways.
In modern times, nearly every nation has had a psychopath or two commit a mass murder, regardless of how strict their gun laws are – the crazed white supremacist in Norway one year ago Sunday, the schoolyard butcher in Dunblane, Scotland, the École Polytechnique killer in Montreal, the mass murderer in Erfurt, Germany … the list seems endless.
And now the Aurora shooter last Friday. There have always been insane people, and there always will be.
But here's the difference between the rest of the world and us: We have TWO Auroras that take place every single day of every single year! At least 24 Americans every day (8-9,000 a year) are killed by people with guns – and that doesn't count the ones accidentally killed by guns or who commit suicide with a gun. Count them and you can triple that number to over 25,000.
That means the United States is responsible for over 80% of all the gun deaths in the 23 richest countries combined. Considering that the people of those countries, as human beings, are no better or worse than any of us, well, then, why us?
Both conservatives and liberals in America operate with firmly held beliefs as to "the why" of this problem. And the reason neither can find their way out of the box toward a real solution is because, in fact, they're both half right.
The right believes that the Founding Fathers, through some sort of divine decree, have guaranteed them the absolute right to own as many guns as they desire. And they will ceaselessly remind you that a gun cannot fire itself – that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."
Of course, they know they're being intellectually dishonest (if I can use that word) when they say that about the Second Amendment because they know the men who wrote the constitution just wanted to make sure a militia could be quickly called up from amongst the farmers and merchants should the Brits decide to return and wreak some havoc.
But they are half right when they say "Guns don't kill people." I would just alter that slogan slightly to speak the real truth: "Guns don't kill people, Americans kill people."
Because we're the only ones in the first world who do this en masse. And you'll hear all stripes of Americans come up with a host of reasons so that they don't have to deal with what's really behind all this murder and mayhem.
They'll say it's the violent movies and video games that are responsible. Last time I checked, the movies and video games in Japan are more violent than ours – and yet usually fewer than 20 people a year are killed there with guns – and in 2006 the number was two!
Others will say it's the number of broken homes that lead to all this killing. I hate to break this to you, but there are almost as many single-parent homes in the U.K. as there are here – and yet, in Great Britain, there are usually fewer than 40 gun murders a year.
People like me will say this is all the result of the U.S. having a history and a culture of men with guns, "cowboys and Indians," "shoot first and ask questions later." And while it is true that the mass genocide of the Native Americans set a pretty ugly model to found a country on, I think it's safe to say we're not the only ones with a violent past or a penchant for genocide. Hello, Germany! That's right I'm talking about you and your history, from the Huns to the Nazis, just loving a good slaughter (as did the Japanese, and the British who ruled the world for hundreds of years – and they didn't achieve that through planting daisies). And yet in Germany, a nation of 80 million people, there are only around 200 gun murders a year.
So those countries (and many others) are just like us – except for the fact that more people here believe in God and go to church than any other Western nation.
My liberal compatriots will tell you if we just had less guns, there would be less gun deaths. And, mathematically, that would be true. If you have less arsenic in the water supply, it will kill less people. Less of anything bad – calories, smoking, reality TV – will kill far fewer people. And if we had strong gun laws that prohibited automatic and semi-automatic weapons and banned the sale of large magazines that can hold a gazillion bullets, well, then shooters like the man in Aurora would not be able to shoot so many people in just a few minutes.
But this, too, has a problem. There are plenty of guns in Canada (mostly hunting rifles) – and yet the annual gun murder count in Canada is around 200 deaths. In fact, because of its proximity, Canada's culture is very similar to ours – the kids play the same violent video games, watch the same movies and TV shows, and yet they don't grow up wanting to kill each other. Switzerland has the third-highest number of guns per capita on earth, but still a low murder rate.
So – why us?
I posed this question a decade ago in my film 'Bowling for Columbine,' and this week, I have had little to say because I feel I said what I had to say ten years ago – and it doesn't seem to have done a whole lot of good other than to now look like it was actually a crystal ball posing as a movie.
This is what I said then, and it is what I will say again today:
1. We Americans are incredibly good killers. We believe in killing as a way of accomplishing our goals. Three-quarters of our states execute criminals, even though the states with the lower murder rates are generally the states with no death penalty.
Our killing is not just historical (the slaughter of Indians and slaves and each other in a "civil" war). It is our current way of resolving whatever it is we're afraid of. It's invasion as foreign policy. Sure there's Iraq and Afghanistan – but we've been invaders since we "conquered the wild west" and now we're hooked so bad we don't even know where to invade (bin Laden wasn't hiding in Afghanistan, he was in Pakistan) or what to invade for (Saddam had zero weapons of mass destruction and nothing to do with 9/11). We send our lower classes off to do the killing, and the rest of us who don't have a loved one over there don't spend a single minute of any given day thinking about the carnage. And now we send in remote pilotless planes to kill, planes that are being controlled by faceless men in a lush, air conditioned studio in suburban Las Vegas. It is madness.
2. We are an easily frightened people and it is easy to manipulate us with fear. What are we so afraid of that we need to have 300 million guns in our homes? Who do we think is going to hurt us? Why are most of these guns in white suburban and rural homes? Maybe we should fix our race problem and our poverty problem (again, #1 in the industrialized world) and then maybe there would be fewer frustrated, frightened, angry people reaching for the gun in the drawer. Maybe we would take better care of each other (here's a good example of what I mean).
Those are my thoughts about Aurora and the violent country I am a citizen of. Like I said, I spelled it all out here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jGtAcDefHg if you'd like to watch it or share it for free with others. All we're lacking here, my friends, is the courage and the resolve. I'm in if you are.
Yours,
Michael Moore
<!-- e --><a href="mailto:MMFlint@MichaelMoore.com">MMFlint@MichaelMoore.com</a><!-- e --> @MMFlint
MichaelMoore.com
It's the Guns – But We All Know, It's Not Really the Guns... a note from Michael Moore
Yours,
Michael Moore
<!-- e --><a href="mailto:MMFlint@MichaelMoore.com">MMFlint@MichaelMoore.com</a><!-- e --> @MMFlint
MichaelMoore.com
:shock: impressive...
| Pinkpop 1992 *BEST EVER* | Rotterdam 1993 | Amsterdam 1996 | Pinkpop 2000 | Arnhem 2006 | Nijmegen 2007 | Rotterdam 2009 | Nijmegen 2010 | Amsterdam I + II 2012 ** | Amsterdam Eddie Vedder Solo 2012 First European Concert *EPIC*| Amsterdam I + II 2014 | Amsterdam Eddie Vedder Solo 2016 night I | Amsterdam I + II 2018 | Amsterdam I -> Canceled + II 2022 *EPIC
no need to be saved from anyone ..she is so mini ,cant find her as target...
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
I too have heard so many assumptions of this man...
A cold blooded killer who does not value life that should lose his own.
The same was said of Giffords shooting and indeed that killer is now diagnosed
as a schizophrenic and receiving forced treatments in prison.
I hope the bloodlust for this killer is not to the point that he will not receive the same
fairness if found to be mentally ill.
The interviews I saw were with victims Friday those in the theatre who escaped
and yes they had empathy also for the gunman . Perhaps because they thought
he was deranged and the way he waited for police. Very illogical move to wait on police.
I am against the death penalty and am wondering if indeed all the victims will want that
as time goes on.
As far as opinions we all have them and they are based in our experiences.
For me mental illness is pretty well understood, well enough to give an opinion,
at least as well as the those who think he just deserves to die and who totally
discounts mental illness and that it can be the cause of his behavior.
We must be watching different things. I haven't seen any empathy from victims. Just shock, anger and sadness.
Yes. That's the second time you've just casually tossed that out there. And, for the second time I'm calling bullshit.
Swear to God... we all know what that means to me...
CNN Friday afternoon perhaps 3 to 4 pm eastern time...
and I do not appreciate being called a liar.
Very odd that people don't think it is possible for anyone to have empathy for the shooter,
as I said of those who do ... there's a heart.
And for those who have no compassion for those with mental
illness I will say the same thing but not in a way one might be proud.
It's the Guns – But We All Know, It's Not Really the Guns... a note from Michael Moore
Tuesday, July 24th, 2012
Friends,
Since Cain went nuts and whacked Abel, there have always been those humans who, for one reason or another, go temporarily or permanently insane and commit unspeakable acts of violence. There was the Roman Emperor Tiberius, who during the first century A.D. enjoyed throwing victims off a cliff on the Mediterranean island of Capri. Gilles de Rais, a French knight and ally of Joan of Arc during the middle ages, went cuckoo-for-Cocoa Puffs one day and ended up murdering hundreds of children. Just a few decades later Vlad the Impaler, the inspiration for Dracula, was killing people in Transylvania in numberless horrifying ways.
In modern times, nearly every nation has had a psychopath or two commit a mass murder, regardless of how strict their gun laws are – the crazed white supremacist in Norway one year ago Sunday, the schoolyard butcher in Dunblane, Scotland, the École Polytechnique killer in Montreal, the mass murderer in Erfurt, Germany … the list seems endless.
And now the Aurora shooter last Friday. There have always been insane people, and there always will be.
But here's the difference between the rest of the world and us: We have TWO Auroras that take place every single day of every single year! At least 24 Americans every day (8-9,000 a year) are killed by people with guns – and that doesn't count the ones accidentally killed by guns or who commit suicide with a gun. Count them and you can triple that number to over 25,000.
That means the United States is responsible for over 80% of all the gun deaths in the 23 richest countries combined. Considering that the people of those countries, as human beings, are no better or worse than any of us, well, then, why us?
Both conservatives and liberals in America operate with firmly held beliefs as to "the why" of this problem. And the reason neither can find their way out of the box toward a real solution is because, in fact, they're both half right.
The right believes that the Founding Fathers, through some sort of divine decree, have guaranteed them the absolute right to own as many guns as they desire. And they will ceaselessly remind you that a gun cannot fire itself – that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."
Of course, they know they're being intellectually dishonest (if I can use that word) when they say that about the Second Amendment because they know the men who wrote the constitution just wanted to make sure a militia could be quickly called up from amongst the farmers and merchants should the Brits decide to return and wreak some havoc.
But they are half right when they say "Guns don't kill people." I would just alter that slogan slightly to speak the real truth: "Guns don't kill people, Americans kill people."
Because we're the only ones in the first world who do this en masse. And you'll hear all stripes of Americans come up with a host of reasons so that they don't have to deal with what's really behind all this murder and mayhem.
They'll say it's the violent movies and video games that are responsible. Last time I checked, the movies and video games in Japan are more violent than ours – and yet usually fewer than 20 people a year are killed there with guns – and in 2006 the number was two!
Others will say it's the number of broken homes that lead to all this killing. I hate to break this to you, but there are almost as many single-parent homes in the U.K. as there are here – and yet, in Great Britain, there are usually fewer than 40 gun murders a year.
People like me will say this is all the result of the U.S. having a history and a culture of men with guns, "cowboys and Indians," "shoot first and ask questions later." And while it is true that the mass genocide of the Native Americans set a pretty ugly model to found a country on, I think it's safe to say we're not the only ones with a violent past or a penchant for genocide. Hello, Germany! That's right I'm talking about you and your history, from the Huns to the Nazis, just loving a good slaughter (as did the Japanese, and the British who ruled the world for hundreds of years – and they didn't achieve that through planting daisies). And yet in Germany, a nation of 80 million people, there are only around 200 gun murders a year.
So those countries (and many others) are just like us – except for the fact that more people here believe in God and go to church than any other Western nation.
My liberal compatriots will tell you if we just had less guns, there would be less gun deaths. And, mathematically, that would be true. If you have less arsenic in the water supply, it will kill less people. Less of anything bad – calories, smoking, reality TV – will kill far fewer people. And if we had strong gun laws that prohibited automatic and semi-automatic weapons and banned the sale of large magazines that can hold a gazillion bullets, well, then shooters like the man in Aurora would not be able to shoot so many people in just a few minutes.
But this, too, has a problem. There are plenty of guns in Canada (mostly hunting rifles) – and yet the annual gun murder count in Canada is around 200 deaths. In fact, because of its proximity, Canada's culture is very similar to ours – the kids play the same violent video games, watch the same movies and TV shows, and yet they don't grow up wanting to kill each other. Switzerland has the third-highest number of guns per capita on earth, but still a low murder rate.
So – why us?
I posed this question a decade ago in my film 'Bowling for Columbine,' and this week, I have had little to say because I feel I said what I had to say ten years ago – and it doesn't seem to have done a whole lot of good other than to now look like it was actually a crystal ball posing as a movie.
This is what I said then, and it is what I will say again today:
1. We Americans are incredibly good killers. We believe in killing as a way of accomplishing our goals. Three-quarters of our states execute criminals, even though the states with the lower murder rates are generally the states with no death penalty.
Our killing is not just historical (the slaughter of Indians and slaves and each other in a "civil" war). It is our current way of resolving whatever it is we're afraid of. It's invasion as foreign policy. Sure there's Iraq and Afghanistan – but we've been invaders since we "conquered the wild west" and now we're hooked so bad we don't even know where to invade (bin Laden wasn't hiding in Afghanistan, he was in Pakistan) or what to invade for (Saddam had zero weapons of mass destruction and nothing to do with 9/11). We send our lower classes off to do the killing, and the rest of us who don't have a loved one over there don't spend a single minute of any given day thinking about the carnage. And now we send in remote pilotless planes to kill, planes that are being controlled by faceless men in a lush, air conditioned studio in suburban Las Vegas. It is madness.
2. We are an easily frightened people and it is easy to manipulate us with fear. What are we so afraid of that we need to have 300 million guns in our homes? Who do we think is going to hurt us? Why are most of these guns in white suburban and rural homes? Maybe we should fix our race problem and our poverty problem (again, #1 in the industrialized world) and then maybe there would be fewer frustrated, frightened, angry people reaching for the gun in the drawer. Maybe we would take better care of each other (here's a good example of what I mean).
Those are my thoughts about Aurora and the violent country I am a citizen of. Like I said, I spelled it all out here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jGtAcDefHg if you'd like to watch it or share it for free with others. All we're lacking here, my friends, is the courage and the resolve. I'm in if you are.
Yours,
Michael Moore
<!-- e --><a href="mailto:MMFlint@MichaelMoore.com">MMFlint@MichaelMoore.com</a><!-- e --> @MMFlint
MichaelMoore.com
Pretty much sums it up.
This show, another show, a show here and a show there.
Except that cars serve another purpose other than to kill. Guns only exist to inflict injury, unless I'm missing something. So while guns don't exist to inherently limit speech, they do exist to wound and kill. I might be able to outrun a man with a knife, bat (both of which serve purposes other than to kill), but I'm pretty sure I can't outrun a bullet, so yeah, I'd be more in fear of the person with a gun. You'd have to get a lot closer to me with a bat or a knife. How many people would that shooter in this attack have killed or injured with a knife or bat? At most a handful.
I don't think drugs and guns are analogous either - just responding to your argument of them only being a tool.
guns serve purposes other than to kill. They open locked doors, they can be used to crack walnuts, I am obviously kidding there...but I will say that guns do serve other purposes. While they can be used to efficiently kill, they can also be used to protect. Guns are amoral not immoral, it is the user that attaches the morality of the action. Target shooting is an absolute blast and relieves a ton of stress, and it isn't about killing anything but a small clay pigeon or circle on a piece of paper...
How many would he have killed with a can of gasoline and a fire at all the exits? Or the explosives he had in his apartment...This is going down a different road than my main intention and since I love to argue I have played along, but my point is that with constitutional rights comes good and bad. Every right has consequences on both sides of the coin. While not all of them end up in death, I am sure they can be causally linked. The 4th and 5th amendments have probably gotten very guilty people off who probably went on to do terrible things, that doesn't mean we should get rid of them or place limits on them. I have a firm belief that when we allow a little infringement we open our selves up to a lot.
To say that a regular citizen doesn't need this or doesn't need that is a losing battle...technically we don't need anything but food, water, and shelter. Gun deaths are prevalent in the country, I am more worried about why people kill others than I am worried about the tools with which they chose to do it with...
brandshing a gun alters the conversation and effectively silences one side of the debate. let's face it, who is going to speak up to someone who is holding a gun???
i guarantee you that those tea partiers that showed up at health care town halls with loaded, open, and brandished rifles silenced one side of the debate, and that side was the side that did not agree with them.
that is infringing on free speech right there... strictly by intimidation.
did the gun walk there on it's own? Or was a person choosing to use intimidation to quiet others? the use of intimidation is not a new technique and you certainly don't need guns to do it.
Now what about a car, is it only to kill people?
Now, these nickels you mention, they are used to buy goods and services no? Not manufactured to kill.
And so on, and so on, etc, etc, etc.
the purpose of a gun varies from person to person I don't use mine to kill things anymore. I use mine to relieve stress at the range, I suppose you could say I would use it to defend my family if someone broke into my house, but who knows if I actually would when the time came. A gang member has a very different use for it than I do, just like someone who uses a car as a weapon has a very different use for it than I do. But again, this part of the conversation is different than where I intended to go...you will not convince me that we wouldn't have thousands of murders without guns, I won't convince you that the person holding the gun is responsible for the actions, not the gun itself...For people who are totally against guns, not like yourself, they treat them as though they are human. This anthropomorphism is not useful in a conversation. I don't want the 4th infringed on or the 5th or the 8th any more than I want that done to the 2nd...if you could prove to me that the majority of the guns owned in this country pose a clear and present danger to everyone I would say limit it as you can limit the first...but as discussed earlier, you will never convince me of that. Are they dangerous, yes, is it constantly clear and present...no...and where it could be guns are limited as in gun free zones...many municipalities do not allow loaded weapons out of the house without a special permit.
I would certainly be for more thorough background checks, and maybe even more disqualifiers...but if I have not done anything wrong, have no mental health issues, I shouldn't be limited as to what and where I purchase it. haven't you seen RED DAWN
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
It's the Guns – But We All Know, It's Not Really the Guns... a note from Michael Moore
Tuesday, July 24th, 2012
****
Yours,
Michael Moore
<!-- e --><a href="mailto:MMFlint@MichaelMoore.com">MMFlint@MichaelMoore.com</a><!-- e --> @MMFlint
MichaelMoore.com
Thank you for that Byrnzie.
On a separate note - This is an emotional topic. I, for one, am against the death penalty. But today I saw a story about a baby who was born yesterday to a mother who was in the theater at the Batman premier during the shooting. She was unhurt and her baby is fine. Her husband, 23 years old is in the same hospital in a coma after being shot in the face at the theater. His eye is gone forever and he has brain damage, but his baby is in the same building as he is, alive and well. They showed a picture of this man with a bandage over his eye and head, and tubes coming out of his mouth, in a coma...This man, a few days ago was excited about starting a family I'll bet...now, he's in a coma. At the same time, in the top of the screen there was a photo of the shooter, Holmes, in court with his red hair. My anger almost made me want to reach through the screen and wring his little prick neck. I have zero empathy for this Holmes character. Of course he's crazy. He might be the one exception to me for the Death Penalty. He planned this for months - a massacre of epic proportions.
It's the Guns – But We All Know, It's Not Really the Guns... a note from Michael Moore
Tuesday, July 24th, 2012
****
Yours,
Michael Moore
<!-- e --><a href="mailto:MMFlint@MichaelMoore.com">MMFlint@MichaelMoore.com</a><!-- e --> @MMFlint
MichaelMoore.com
Thank you for that Byrnzie.
On a separate note - This is an emotional topic. I, for one, am against the death penalty. But today I saw a story about a baby who was born yesterday to a mother who was in the theater at the Batman premier during the shooting. She was unhurt and her baby is fine. Her husband, 23 years old is in the same hospital in a coma after being shot in the face at the theater. His eye is gone forever and he has brain damage, but his baby is in the same building as he is, alive and well. They showed a picture of this man with a bandage over his eye and head, and tubes coming out of his mouth, in a coma...This man, a few days ago was excited about starting a family I'll bet...now, he's in a coma. At the same time, in the top of the screen there was a photo of the shooter, Holmes, in court with his red hair. My anger almost made me want to reach through the screen and wring his little prick neck. I have zero empathy for this Holmes character. Of course he's crazy. He might be the one exception to me for the Death Penalty. He planned this for months - a massacre of epic proportions.
ufff..very sad...
and you are right..im against death penalty as well
..but this type od monsters really makes you wonder...
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
I would certainly be for more thorough background checks, and maybe even more disqualifiers...but if I have not done anything wrong, have no mental health issues, I shouldn't be limited as to what and where I purchase it. haven't you seen RED DAWN
So I'm just curious then...If you shouldnt be limited to what you can buy...
you think people should be allowed to buy an AK-47, an UZI, or an M-16? or one of those Metal Storm weapons that fires something like a million rounds per minute?
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Numerous witness reports state that there was more than one person involved, yet the police insist it was only one. Numerous people state that a person sat in the front row, received a phone call, went to the exit and was seen waving at someone. We aren't being told the truth, IMO.
Some people have questioned me directly, apologies I've been working a lot the last few days and with the log-in problems that this app has I can't respond as easy until I get to my computer.
brandshing a gun alters the conversation and effectively silences one side of the debate. let's face it, who is going to speak up to someone who is holding a gun???
i guarantee you that those tea partiers that showed up at health care town halls with loaded, open, and brandished rifles silenced one side of the debate, and that side was the side that did not agree with them.
that is infringing on free speech right there... strictly by intimidation.
did the gun walk there on it's own? Or was a person choosing to use intimidation to quiet others? the use of intimidation is not a new technique and you certainly don't need guns to do it.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Numerous witness reports state that there was more than one person involved, yet the police insist it was only one. Numerous people state that a person sat in the front row, received a phone call, went to the exit and was seen waving at someone. We aren't being told the truth, IMO.
Some people have questioned me directly, apologies I've been working a lot the last few days and with the log-in problems that this app has I can't respond as easy until I get to my computer.
when my wife and i first saw the shooting on the news we both wondered how he got into the emergency exit from the outside. interesting...
This show, another show, a show here and a show there.
Numerous witness reports state that there was more than one person involved, yet the police insist it was only one. Numerous people state that a person sat in the front row, received a phone call, went to the exit and was seen waving at someone. We aren't being told the truth, IMO.
Some people have questioned me directly, apologies I've been working a lot the last few days and with the log-in problems that this app has I can't respond as easy until I get to my computer.
when my wife and i first saw the shooting on the news we both wondered how he got into the emergency exit from the outside. interesting...
I hadnt heard this report about a second person. They were saying that the shooter bought a ticket to the show and he went to a seat near the front until the movie started. Then he went out the back door and propped it open and proceeded to get dressed and retrieved his 4 weapons. Then he re-entered through the propped open door and began the massacre.
We must be watching different things. I haven't seen any empathy from victims. Just shock, anger and sadness.
Yes. That's the second time you've just casually tossed that out there. And, for the second time I'm calling bullshit.
Pandora quote:
Swear to God... we all know what that means to me...
CNN Friday afternoon perhaps 3 to 4 pm eastern time...
and I do not appreciate being called a liar.
Very odd that people don't think it is possible for anyone to have empathy for the shooter,
as I said of those who do ... there's a heart.
And for those who have no compassion for those with mental
illness I will say the same thing but not in a way one might be proud.[/quote]
Then don't stretch the truth to make your really weak case stronger. If this was actually true, this would actually be news- some grieving mother or father crying... and then adding: "It's just so senseless. My child was only 10. And... and... this poor, poor man who committed this act... I'm so relieved that this poor man surrendered really quickly once faced with a gun himself so that there wasn't one more death to the mix!"
If anyone can post anything that even remotely supports what you have said, of course, I'll eat my words.
And there you go again- using veiled methodology to hoist yourself up over other people as the champion with the great, big heart, while at the same time leaving it to inference that most of us are unenlightened buffoons... simply incapable of such noble depths of understanding and compassion when we really should.
We have compassion for mental illness. We have none for a sick, murderous, rampaging bastard who, at this point in time, doesn't even appear to be mentally ill: advanced university studies/ premeditation/ the crime site chosen to be the opening night of one of his favourite movie series/ the wherewithall to quickly surrender as soon as he's in any danger at all.
It's not like this Batman fan was shit out of luck getting his tickets and, being mentally ill, went back to his apartment to get whatever he had there to vent his frustration- incapable of dealing it. Nope, just a cool, calculating, sick freak. MmmmHmmmm.
I mentioned in one of my earlier posts that there's something to be said for timing. Speaking of Michael Moore, his B for C highlighted the NRA having displayed brutal timing in the past- holding rallies in the wake of senseless gun slaughters and deaths. I can't imagine these had been effective in swaying people to the notion that guns are cool. Likewise, it's probably not great timing to start trumpeting the cause for mentall illness. As I said before, let the wounds heal a bit and maybe people might have more of a stomach for material.
And, for that matter... let's make sure that were even talking about mental illness- you might be hurting the cause.
I would certainly be for more thorough background checks, and maybe even more disqualifiers...but if I have not done anything wrong, have no mental health issues, I shouldn't be limited as to what and where I purchase it. haven't you seen RED DAWN
So I'm just curious then...If you shouldnt be limited to what you can buy...
you think people should be allowed to buy an AK-47, an UZI, or an M-16? or one of those Metal Storm weapons that fires something like a million rounds per minute?
to answer your question, yes. Do I think a person should buy them, no.
You guys do know that Assault rifles are easily purchased and used in the vast minority of gun crimes, let alone murders. Again, it isn't the tools that are the problem, it is the people. figure out the people and you have got something.
We can go to silly extremes all we want, but private sale of the metal storm 36 barrel weapon doesn't automatically mean they will be used in the commission of a crime, and most likely will violate the contract with which it was developed in the first place.
There are privately owned tanks and canons and all kinds of shit that can do major damage, but when was the last time you saw a tank being used for a getaway?
It is all about hype and fear on both sides...some people are afraid of others owning guns, some people are afraid of others so they own guns...either way, it is fear based. I am not any more afraid of an assault rifle ending my life today as I was 3 weeks ago.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I would certainly be for more thorough background checks, and maybe even more disqualifiers...but if I have not done anything wrong, have no mental health issues, I shouldn't be limited as to what and where I purchase it. haven't you seen RED DAWN
So I'm just curious then...If you shouldnt be limited to what you can buy...
you think people should be allowed to buy an AK-47, an UZI, or an M-16? or one of those Metal Storm weapons that fires something like a million rounds per minute?
to answer your question, yes. Do I think a person should buy them, no.
You guys do know that Assault rifles are easily purchased and used in the vast minority of gun crimes, let alone murders. Again, it isn't the tools that are the problem, it is the people. figure out the people and you have got something.
We can go to silly extremes all we want, but private sale of the metal storm 36 barrel weapon doesn't automatically mean they will be used in the commission of a crime, and most likely will violate the contract with which it was developed in the first place.
There are privately owned tanks and canons and all kinds of shit that can do major damage, but when was the last time you saw a tank being used for a getaway?
It is all about hype and fear on both sides...some people are afraid of others owning guns, some people are afraid of others so they own guns...either way, it is fear based. I am not any more afraid of an assault rifle ending my life today as I was 3 weeks ago.
Wow, I guess im not surprised though. I know you think we shouldnt have restrictions. and yeah, those are some good points, but I still dont see the need or reason for a person having an AR-15. and if it was not readily available, its possible that this kid would've come to this shootout with a shotgun and 2 handguns. less death is the possible outcome. But yes, people will say, he'd just find another way to get the AR-15 illegally...Thank god that Loughner kid in AZ didnt buy an AR-15. I just can't imagine there's nothing that can be done to deter SOME violence by limiting it a bit. btw, I hear the AR-15 jammed on him. I don't know how many rounds he got off, but it couldve been a lot worse apparently.
I would certainly be for more thorough background checks, and maybe even more disqualifiers...but if I have not done anything wrong, have no mental health issues, I shouldn't be limited as to what and where I purchase it. haven't you seen RED DAWN
So I'm just curious then...If you shouldnt be limited to what you can buy...
you think people should be allowed to buy an AK-47, an UZI, or an M-16? or one of those Metal Storm weapons that fires something like a million rounds per minute?
to answer your question, yes. Do I think a person should buy them, no.
You guys do know that Assault rifles are easily purchased and used in the vast minority of gun crimes, let alone murders. Again, it isn't the tools that are the problem, it is the people. figure out the people and you have got something.
We can go to silly extremes all we want, but private sale of the metal storm 36 barrel weapon doesn't automatically mean they will be used in the commission of a crime, and most likely will violate the contract with which it was developed in the first place.
There are privately owned tanks and canons and all kinds of shit that can do major damage, but when was the last time you saw a tank being used for a getaway?
It is all about hype and fear on both sides...some people are afraid of others owning guns, some people are afraid of others so they own guns...either way, it is fear based. I am not any more afraid of an assault rifle ending my life today as I was 3 weeks ago.
remember that tank that was taken from an armory in kearny mesa ca. back in 200-2004 ? that was right in my neighborhood and that guy went nuts, he was a local tweeker (meth) anyway just thought I'd throw that in sense you brought up tanks
remember that tank that was taken from an armory in kearny mesa ca. back in 200-2004 ? that was right in my neighborhood and that guy went nuts, he was a local tweeker (meth) anyway just thought I'd throw that in sense you brought up tanks
Godfather.
Yeeeeahhh, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say I think there should be some restrictions on TANK purchases. :nono:
I would certainly be for more thorough background checks, and maybe even more disqualifiers...but if I have not done anything wrong, have no mental health issues, I shouldn't be limited as to what and where I purchase it. haven't you seen RED DAWN
So I'm just curious then...If you shouldnt be limited to what you can buy...
you think people should be allowed to buy an AK-47, an UZI, or an M-16? or one of those Metal Storm weapons that fires something like a million rounds per minute?
to answer your question, yes. Do I think a person should buy them, no.
You guys do know that Assault rifles are easily purchased and used in the vast minority of gun crimes, let alone murders. Again, it isn't the tools that are the problem, it is the people. figure out the people and you have got something.
We can go to silly extremes all we want, but private sale of the metal storm 36 barrel weapon doesn't automatically mean they will be used in the commission of a crime, and most likely will violate the contract with which it was developed in the first place.
There are privately owned tanks and canons and all kinds of shit that can do major damage, but when was the last time you saw a tank being used for a getaway?
It is all about hype and fear on both sides...some people are afraid of others owning guns, some people are afraid of others so they own guns...either way, it is fear based. I am not any more afraid of an assault rifle ending my life today as I was 3 weeks ago.
I'm always confused by this response. If you provide a society with the means to commit a mass murder, it is almost certain that at some point somebody will carry through with it. The weapons we're now describing are used solely to inflict a maximum amount of damage on large numbers of people. Allowing any and every individual to purchase these tools is simply irresponsible. In fact if you follow this line of thinking, should rocket launchers and nuclear weapons then be available to those that could afford them? Where does one draw a line before you reach absurdity?
Selling weapons of mass destruction doesn't automatically mean they will be used to commit a crime, but it certainly opens up that possibility. Isn't that why the United States is so vehemently opposed to states like Iran or North Korea developing their nuclear weapons programs?
So I'm just curious then...If you shouldnt be limited to what you can buy...
you think people should be allowed to buy an AK-47, an UZI, or an M-16? or one of those Metal Storm weapons that fires something like a million rounds per minute?
to answer your question, yes. Do I think a person should buy them, no.
You guys do know that Assault rifles are easily purchased and used in the vast minority of gun crimes, let alone murders. Again, it isn't the tools that are the problem, it is the people. figure out the people and you have got something.
We can go to silly extremes all we want, but private sale of the metal storm 36 barrel weapon doesn't automatically mean they will be used in the commission of a crime, and most likely will violate the contract with which it was developed in the first place.
There are privately owned tanks and canons and all kinds of shit that can do major damage, but when was the last time you saw a tank being used for a getaway?
It is all about hype and fear on both sides...some people are afraid of others owning guns, some people are afraid of others so they own guns...either way, it is fear based. I am not any more afraid of an assault rifle ending my life today as I was 3 weeks ago.
Wow, I guess im not surprised though. I know you think we shouldnt have restrictions. and yeah, those are some good points, but I still dont see the need or reason for a person having an AR-15. and if it was not readily available, its possible that this kid would've come to this shootout with a shotgun and 2 handguns. less death is the possible outcome. But yes, people will say, he'd just find another way to get the AR-15 illegally...Thank god that Loughner kid in AZ didnt buy an AR-15. I just can't imagine there's nothing that can be done to deter SOME violence by limiting it a bit. btw, I hear the AR-15 jammed on him. I don't know how many rounds he got off, but it couldve been a lot worse apparently.
There are points to be made on all sides of this argument there is no doubt about that...some are willing to listen some aren't...I just think that if we do change the 2nd, we need to do it properly with a constitutional amendment.
And I don't see the need for it either, like I said, we only need water food and shelter. The bigger question is why would someone want one? I do wonder how TL could have gotten to a political figure's speaking engagement with an AR-15 however.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I'm always confused by this response. If you provide a society with the means to commit a mass murder, it is almost certain that at some point somebody will carry through with it. The weapons we're now describing are used solely to inflict a maximum amount of damage on large numbers of people. Allowing any and every individual to purchase these tools is simply irresponsible. In fact if you follow this line of thinking, should rocket launchers and nuclear weapons then be available to those that could afford them? Where does one draw a line before you reach absurdity?
Selling weapons of mass destruction doesn't automatically mean they will be used to commit a crime, but it certainly opens up that possibility. Isn't that why the United States is so vehemently opposed to states like Iran or North Korea developing their nuclear weapons programs?
The absurdity of the argument is the one you have reached going all the way to Nuclear weapons. The clear and present danger test used for the 1st amendment is something I have said repeatedly would apply to the 2nd and most others in the bill of rights. If you can prove that selling nuclear weapons to private citizens presents a clear and present danger to society as a whole then they would be limited(shouldn't be too hard to do that)...that goes with all weapons...Jesus christ, I am not here to argue the specifics on what weapons should or shouldn't be allowed to be sold...my point through all of it is that the 2nd amendment, like all others, is something that should not be limited because of some fictional notion that guns are somehow inherently evil and will cause people to commit crimes using them...Like the 4th and the 1st both, a clear and present danger or probable cause can be an overriding factor allowing the Gov't to limit those rights...if you cannot show that you are not going to get a lot of sympathy from me...If you start limiting based on an idea that something bad might happen it can lead to a lot of shit that people hate...namely things like the Patriot Act, NDAA, violations of the 8th etc
I don't think the US gov't should stop NK or Iran from getting nuclear energy programs either. But I don't think the level of danger is the real reason behind not wanting them to have the weapons but that is a whole other ball game...
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
There are points to be made on all sides of this argument there is no doubt about that...some are willing to listen some aren't...I just think that if we do change the 2nd, we need to do it properly with a constitutional amendment.
We must be watching different things. I haven't seen any empathy from victims. Just shock, anger and sadness.
Yes. That's the second time you've just casually tossed that out there. And, for the second time I'm calling bullshit.
Swear to God... we all know what that means to me...
CNN Friday afternoon perhaps 3 to 4 pm eastern time...
and I do not appreciate being called a liar.
Very odd that people don't think it is possible for anyone to have empathy for the shooter,
as I said of those who do ... there's a heart.
And for those who have no compassion for those with mental :wtf:
I would never be so rude...
illness I will say the same thing but not in a way one might be proud.
You should fix your quote... you make me look like the bad guy :wtf:
I would never be so rude ...
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
There are also pictures floating with an AR that was dropped outside the back door, but the gun has a 30 rd magazine in it. Witnesses said he dropped the gun in the theatre after it jammed. So then he picked it back up on his way out and changed the mag out from the 100 rd that jammed just to drop it again?
This crap isn't lining up. I'm calling this guy Oswald.
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Comments
Yes. That's the second time you've just casually tossed that out there. And, for the second time I'm calling bullshit.
Shooting staged by FBI. Discuss. :corn:
Wow. The writer of the article I believe is as fucked up as the shooter. :x :fp:
Tuesday, July 24th, 2012
Friends,
Since Cain went nuts and whacked Abel, there have always been those humans who, for one reason or another, go temporarily or permanently insane and commit unspeakable acts of violence. There was the Roman Emperor Tiberius, who during the first century A.D. enjoyed throwing victims off a cliff on the Mediterranean island of Capri. Gilles de Rais, a French knight and ally of Joan of Arc during the middle ages, went cuckoo-for-Cocoa Puffs one day and ended up murdering hundreds of children. Just a few decades later Vlad the Impaler, the inspiration for Dracula, was killing people in Transylvania in numberless horrifying ways.
In modern times, nearly every nation has had a psychopath or two commit a mass murder, regardless of how strict their gun laws are – the crazed white supremacist in Norway one year ago Sunday, the schoolyard butcher in Dunblane, Scotland, the École Polytechnique killer in Montreal, the mass murderer in Erfurt, Germany … the list seems endless.
And now the Aurora shooter last Friday. There have always been insane people, and there always will be.
But here's the difference between the rest of the world and us: We have TWO Auroras that take place every single day of every single year! At least 24 Americans every day (8-9,000 a year) are killed by people with guns – and that doesn't count the ones accidentally killed by guns or who commit suicide with a gun. Count them and you can triple that number to over 25,000.
That means the United States is responsible for over 80% of all the gun deaths in the 23 richest countries combined. Considering that the people of those countries, as human beings, are no better or worse than any of us, well, then, why us?
Both conservatives and liberals in America operate with firmly held beliefs as to "the why" of this problem. And the reason neither can find their way out of the box toward a real solution is because, in fact, they're both half right.
The right believes that the Founding Fathers, through some sort of divine decree, have guaranteed them the absolute right to own as many guns as they desire. And they will ceaselessly remind you that a gun cannot fire itself – that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."
Of course, they know they're being intellectually dishonest (if I can use that word) when they say that about the Second Amendment because they know the men who wrote the constitution just wanted to make sure a militia could be quickly called up from amongst the farmers and merchants should the Brits decide to return and wreak some havoc.
But they are half right when they say "Guns don't kill people." I would just alter that slogan slightly to speak the real truth: "Guns don't kill people, Americans kill people."
Because we're the only ones in the first world who do this en masse. And you'll hear all stripes of Americans come up with a host of reasons so that they don't have to deal with what's really behind all this murder and mayhem.
They'll say it's the violent movies and video games that are responsible. Last time I checked, the movies and video games in Japan are more violent than ours – and yet usually fewer than 20 people a year are killed there with guns – and in 2006 the number was two!
Others will say it's the number of broken homes that lead to all this killing. I hate to break this to you, but there are almost as many single-parent homes in the U.K. as there are here – and yet, in Great Britain, there are usually fewer than 40 gun murders a year.
People like me will say this is all the result of the U.S. having a history and a culture of men with guns, "cowboys and Indians," "shoot first and ask questions later." And while it is true that the mass genocide of the Native Americans set a pretty ugly model to found a country on, I think it's safe to say we're not the only ones with a violent past or a penchant for genocide. Hello, Germany! That's right I'm talking about you and your history, from the Huns to the Nazis, just loving a good slaughter (as did the Japanese, and the British who ruled the world for hundreds of years – and they didn't achieve that through planting daisies). And yet in Germany, a nation of 80 million people, there are only around 200 gun murders a year.
So those countries (and many others) are just like us – except for the fact that more people here believe in God and go to church than any other Western nation.
My liberal compatriots will tell you if we just had less guns, there would be less gun deaths. And, mathematically, that would be true. If you have less arsenic in the water supply, it will kill less people. Less of anything bad – calories, smoking, reality TV – will kill far fewer people. And if we had strong gun laws that prohibited automatic and semi-automatic weapons and banned the sale of large magazines that can hold a gazillion bullets, well, then shooters like the man in Aurora would not be able to shoot so many people in just a few minutes.
But this, too, has a problem. There are plenty of guns in Canada (mostly hunting rifles) – and yet the annual gun murder count in Canada is around 200 deaths. In fact, because of its proximity, Canada's culture is very similar to ours – the kids play the same violent video games, watch the same movies and TV shows, and yet they don't grow up wanting to kill each other. Switzerland has the third-highest number of guns per capita on earth, but still a low murder rate.
So – why us?
I posed this question a decade ago in my film 'Bowling for Columbine,' and this week, I have had little to say because I feel I said what I had to say ten years ago – and it doesn't seem to have done a whole lot of good other than to now look like it was actually a crystal ball posing as a movie.
This is what I said then, and it is what I will say again today:
1. We Americans are incredibly good killers. We believe in killing as a way of accomplishing our goals. Three-quarters of our states execute criminals, even though the states with the lower murder rates are generally the states with no death penalty.
Our killing is not just historical (the slaughter of Indians and slaves and each other in a "civil" war). It is our current way of resolving whatever it is we're afraid of. It's invasion as foreign policy. Sure there's Iraq and Afghanistan – but we've been invaders since we "conquered the wild west" and now we're hooked so bad we don't even know where to invade (bin Laden wasn't hiding in Afghanistan, he was in Pakistan) or what to invade for (Saddam had zero weapons of mass destruction and nothing to do with 9/11). We send our lower classes off to do the killing, and the rest of us who don't have a loved one over there don't spend a single minute of any given day thinking about the carnage. And now we send in remote pilotless planes to kill, planes that are being controlled by faceless men in a lush, air conditioned studio in suburban Las Vegas. It is madness.
2. We are an easily frightened people and it is easy to manipulate us with fear. What are we so afraid of that we need to have 300 million guns in our homes? Who do we think is going to hurt us? Why are most of these guns in white suburban and rural homes? Maybe we should fix our race problem and our poverty problem (again, #1 in the industrialized world) and then maybe there would be fewer frustrated, frightened, angry people reaching for the gun in the drawer. Maybe we would take better care of each other (here's a good example of what I mean).
Those are my thoughts about Aurora and the violent country I am a citizen of. Like I said, I spelled it all out here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jGtAcDefHg if you'd like to watch it or share it for free with others. All we're lacking here, my friends, is the courage and the resolve. I'm in if you are.
Yours,
Michael Moore
<!-- e --><a href="mailto:MMFlint@MichaelMoore.com">MMFlint@MichaelMoore.com</a><!-- e -->
@MMFlint
MichaelMoore.com
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
CNN Friday afternoon perhaps 3 to 4 pm eastern time...
and I do not appreciate being called a liar.
Very odd that people don't think it is possible for anyone to have empathy for the shooter,
as I said of those who do ... there's a heart.
And for those who have no compassion for those with mental
illness I will say the same thing but not in a way one might be proud.
Pretty much sums it up.
guns serve purposes other than to kill. They open locked doors, they can be used to crack walnuts,
How many would he have killed with a can of gasoline and a fire at all the exits? Or the explosives he had in his apartment...This is going down a different road than my main intention and since I love to argue I have played along, but my point is that with constitutional rights comes good and bad. Every right has consequences on both sides of the coin. While not all of them end up in death, I am sure they can be causally linked. The 4th and 5th amendments have probably gotten very guilty people off who probably went on to do terrible things, that doesn't mean we should get rid of them or place limits on them. I have a firm belief that when we allow a little infringement we open our selves up to a lot.
To say that a regular citizen doesn't need this or doesn't need that is a losing battle...technically we don't need anything but food, water, and shelter. Gun deaths are prevalent in the country, I am more worried about why people kill others than I am worried about the tools with which they chose to do it with...
did the gun walk there on it's own? Or was a person choosing to use intimidation to quiet others? the use of intimidation is not a new technique and you certainly don't need guns to do it.
the purpose of a gun varies from person to person I don't use mine to kill things anymore. I use mine to relieve stress at the range, I suppose you could say I would use it to defend my family if someone broke into my house, but who knows if I actually would when the time came. A gang member has a very different use for it than I do, just like someone who uses a car as a weapon has a very different use for it than I do. But again, this part of the conversation is different than where I intended to go...you will not convince me that we wouldn't have thousands of murders without guns, I won't convince you that the person holding the gun is responsible for the actions, not the gun itself...For people who are totally against guns, not like yourself, they treat them as though they are human. This anthropomorphism is not useful in a conversation. I don't want the 4th infringed on or the 5th or the 8th any more than I want that done to the 2nd...if you could prove to me that the majority of the guns owned in this country pose a clear and present danger to everyone I would say limit it as you can limit the first...but as discussed earlier, you will never convince me of that. Are they dangerous, yes, is it constantly clear and present...no...and where it could be guns are limited as in gun free zones...many municipalities do not allow loaded weapons out of the house without a special permit.
I would certainly be for more thorough background checks, and maybe even more disqualifiers...but if I have not done anything wrong, have no mental health issues, I shouldn't be limited as to what and where I purchase it. haven't you seen RED DAWN
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Thank you for that Byrnzie.
On a separate note - This is an emotional topic. I, for one, am against the death penalty. But today I saw a story about a baby who was born yesterday to a mother who was in the theater at the Batman premier during the shooting. She was unhurt and her baby is fine. Her husband, 23 years old is in the same hospital in a coma after being shot in the face at the theater. His eye is gone forever and he has brain damage, but his baby is in the same building as he is, alive and well. They showed a picture of this man with a bandage over his eye and head, and tubes coming out of his mouth, in a coma...This man, a few days ago was excited about starting a family I'll bet...now, he's in a coma. At the same time, in the top of the screen there was a photo of the shooter, Holmes, in court with his red hair. My anger almost made me want to reach through the screen and wring his little prick neck. I have zero empathy for this Holmes character. Of course he's crazy. He might be the one exception to me for the Death Penalty. He planned this for months - a massacre of epic proportions.
and you are right..im against death penalty as well
..but this type od monsters really makes you wonder...
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
So I'm just curious then...If you shouldnt be limited to what you can buy...
you think people should be allowed to buy an AK-47, an UZI, or an M-16? or one of those Metal Storm weapons that fires something like a million rounds per minute?
Some people have questioned me directly, apologies I've been working a lot the last few days and with the log-in problems that this app has I can't respond as easy until I get to my computer.
did the gun walk there on it's own? Or was a person choosing to use intimidation to quiet others? the use of intimidation is not a new technique and you certainly don't need guns to do it.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
when my wife and i first saw the shooting on the news we both wondered how he got into the emergency exit from the outside. interesting...
I hadnt heard this report about a second person. They were saying that the shooter bought a ticket to the show and he went to a seat near the front until the movie started. Then he went out the back door and propped it open and proceeded to get dressed and retrieved his 4 weapons. Then he re-entered through the propped open door and began the massacre.
Pandora quote:
Swear to God... we all know what that means to me...
CNN Friday afternoon perhaps 3 to 4 pm eastern time...
and I do not appreciate being called a liar.
Very odd that people don't think it is possible for anyone to have empathy for the shooter,
as I said of those who do ... there's a heart.
And for those who have no compassion for those with mental
illness I will say the same thing but not in a way one might be proud.[/quote]
Then don't stretch the truth to make your really weak case stronger. If this was actually true, this would actually be news- some grieving mother or father crying... and then adding: "It's just so senseless. My child was only 10. And... and... this poor, poor man who committed this act... I'm so relieved that this poor man surrendered really quickly once faced with a gun himself so that there wasn't one more death to the mix!"
If anyone can post anything that even remotely supports what you have said, of course, I'll eat my words.
And there you go again- using veiled methodology to hoist yourself up over other people as the champion with the great, big heart, while at the same time leaving it to inference that most of us are unenlightened buffoons... simply incapable of such noble depths of understanding and compassion when we really should.
We have compassion for mental illness. We have none for a sick, murderous, rampaging bastard who, at this point in time, doesn't even appear to be mentally ill: advanced university studies/ premeditation/ the crime site chosen to be the opening night of one of his favourite movie series/ the wherewithall to quickly surrender as soon as he's in any danger at all.
It's not like this Batman fan was shit out of luck getting his tickets and, being mentally ill, went back to his apartment to get whatever he had there to vent his frustration- incapable of dealing it. Nope, just a cool, calculating, sick freak. MmmmHmmmm.
I mentioned in one of my earlier posts that there's something to be said for timing. Speaking of Michael Moore, his B for C highlighted the NRA having displayed brutal timing in the past- holding rallies in the wake of senseless gun slaughters and deaths. I can't imagine these had been effective in swaying people to the notion that guns are cool. Likewise, it's probably not great timing to start trumpeting the cause for mentall illness. As I said before, let the wounds heal a bit and maybe people might have more of a stomach for material.
And, for that matter... let's make sure that were even talking about mental illness- you might be hurting the cause.
to answer your question, yes. Do I think a person should buy them, no.
You guys do know that Assault rifles are easily purchased and used in the vast minority of gun crimes, let alone murders. Again, it isn't the tools that are the problem, it is the people. figure out the people and you have got something.
We can go to silly extremes all we want, but private sale of the metal storm 36 barrel weapon doesn't automatically mean they will be used in the commission of a crime, and most likely will violate the contract with which it was developed in the first place.
There are privately owned tanks and canons and all kinds of shit that can do major damage, but when was the last time you saw a tank being used for a getaway?
It is all about hype and fear on both sides...some people are afraid of others owning guns, some people are afraid of others so they own guns...either way, it is fear based. I am not any more afraid of an assault rifle ending my life today as I was 3 weeks ago.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Wow, I guess im not surprised though. I know you think we shouldnt have restrictions. and yeah, those are some good points, but I still dont see the need or reason for a person having an AR-15. and if it was not readily available, its possible that this kid would've come to this shootout with a shotgun and 2 handguns. less death is the possible outcome. But yes, people will say, he'd just find another way to get the AR-15 illegally...Thank god that Loughner kid in AZ didnt buy an AR-15. I just can't imagine there's nothing that can be done to deter SOME violence by limiting it a bit. btw, I hear the AR-15 jammed on him. I don't know how many rounds he got off, but it couldve been a lot worse apparently.
Godfather.
Yeeeeahhh, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say I think there should be some restrictions on TANK purchases. :nono:
I'm always confused by this response. If you provide a society with the means to commit a mass murder, it is almost certain that at some point somebody will carry through with it. The weapons we're now describing are used solely to inflict a maximum amount of damage on large numbers of people. Allowing any and every individual to purchase these tools is simply irresponsible. In fact if you follow this line of thinking, should rocket launchers and nuclear weapons then be available to those that could afford them? Where does one draw a line before you reach absurdity?
Selling weapons of mass destruction doesn't automatically mean they will be used to commit a crime, but it certainly opens up that possibility. Isn't that why the United States is so vehemently opposed to states like Iran or North Korea developing their nuclear weapons programs?
And I don't see the need for it either, like I said, we only need water food and shelter. The bigger question is why would someone want one? I do wonder how TL could have gotten to a political figure's speaking engagement with an AR-15 however.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
The absurdity of the argument is the one you have reached going all the way to Nuclear weapons. The clear and present danger test used for the 1st amendment is something I have said repeatedly would apply to the 2nd and most others in the bill of rights. If you can prove that selling nuclear weapons to private citizens presents a clear and present danger to society as a whole then they would be limited(shouldn't be too hard to do that)...that goes with all weapons...Jesus christ, I am not here to argue the specifics on what weapons should or shouldn't be allowed to be sold...my point through all of it is that the 2nd amendment, like all others, is something that should not be limited because of some fictional notion that guns are somehow inherently evil and will cause people to commit crimes using them...Like the 4th and the 1st both, a clear and present danger or probable cause can be an overriding factor allowing the Gov't to limit those rights...if you cannot show that you are not going to get a lot of sympathy from me...If you start limiting based on an idea that something bad might happen it can lead to a lot of shit that people hate...namely things like the Patriot Act, NDAA, violations of the 8th etc
I don't think the US gov't should stop NK or Iran from getting nuclear energy programs either. But I don't think the level of danger is the real reason behind not wanting them to have the weapons but that is a whole other ball game...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Yes +1
You should fix your quote... you make me look like the bad guy :wtf:
I would never be so rude ...
This crap isn't lining up. I'm calling this guy Oswald.