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...
This is the problem that I have with the Second Amendment. The way it is read is so broad that in theory it should allow a person to possess any and all weaponry available. The argument is absurd. The clear and present danger test actually places a limit on the 1st Amendment yet good luck placing similar limits on the 2nd Amendment. I don't think there's a chance that it would be upheld by the Supreme Court. Any limits on firearms seem purely arbitrary. Even the right to defend one's self is subjective.
I'm sure there will be a day when Americans will have the right to possess fully automatic weapons, but I can't for the life of me understand the rationale for allowing it. I don't really trust most governments, but then again a government is made up of private citizens who I also don't place a lot of faith in either. I just find it baffling that people treat the second amendment as being so untouchable when society is willing to place restrictions on freedom of speech and assembly. When your 1st Amendment rights are trampled on everybody just sighs and goes about their lives. When people even bring up the 2nd Amendment the lobbyists and gun groups are out in full force crying foul. I just don't get it.
Then again, as long as you aren't bringing your weaponry into my back yard (Canada), it's not really a major issue for me.
...
Come on... you are smarter than that. You know witness accounts can vary... i.e., several people see the same event and several different accounts are retold. Especially in a chaotic atmosphere where you are scrambling for your life and not concentrating on recording details.
Let the forensics tell the tale.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
You should fix your quote... you make me look like the bad guy
(Pandora)
I'm not sure what happened to my jumble of quotes. To avoid the problem again, I just italicized your last words. I stand by what I have said and never intended to make my words yours.
There's a 'bad guy' in this discussion?
Is this because he called 'bullshit' to your claim that some of the the victims of the crime have publically empathized with the ruthless killer? Is it the term I used? If so, I must apologize for my crude mannerisms- in my circle of friends... it's commonly used and not deemed offensive. I am seriously not sure what else you would call such utterings the way they sit in my mind?
I'll apologize again, but, "No, seriously I saw it once on CNN in the afternoon sometime" doesn't legitimize your statements. Until proven, they remain outlandish.
Again, if I hear differently... I'll be on this forum, hat in hand, apologizing.
Until then, I think I'm going to leave your comments alone. For at least this topic, we are way too far apart to do anything but argue. We have done enough of that. Have a nice day.
You should fix your quote... you make me look like the bad guy
(Pandora)
I'm not sure what happened to my jumble of quotes. To avoid the problem again, I just italicized your last words. I stand by what I have said and never intended to make my words yours.
There's a 'bad guy' in this discussion?
Is this because he called 'bullshit' to your claim that some of the the victims of the crime have publically empathized with the ruthless killer? Is it the term I used? If so, I must apologize for my crude mannerisms- in my circle of friends... it's commonly used and not deemed offensive. I am seriously not sure what else you would call such utterings the way they sit in my mind?
I'll apologize again, but, "No, seriously I saw it once on CNN in the afternoon sometime" doesn't legitimize your statements. Until proven, they remain outlandish.
Again, if I hear differently... I'll be on this forum, hat in hand, apologizing.
Until then, I think I'm going to leave your comments alone. For at least this topic, we are way too far apart to do anything but argue. We have done enough of that. Have a nice day.
Be very VERY careful about putting words in someone's mouth by messing up their quoted text please. It's not difficult to fix it. I have fixed it on the previous post in question. Also, see the Posting Guidelines...especially about treating each other with respect. It's possible to debate politely.
This is the problem that I have with the Second Amendment. The way it is read is so broad that in theory it should allow a person to possess any and all weaponry available. The argument is absurd. The clear and present danger test actually places a limit on the 1st Amendment yet good luck placing similar limits on the 2nd Amendment. I don't think there's a chance that it would be upheld by the Supreme Court. Any limits on firearms seem purely arbitrary. Even the right to defend one's self is subjective.
Possibly, but the clear and present danger test would be applied to nuclear weapons. You could argue that each and every fire arm is a clear and present danger at all times, I would say that you would have a very difficult time proving that...
I'm sure there will be a day when Americans will have the right to possess fully automatic weapons, but I can't for the life of me understand the rationale for allowing it. I don't really trust most governments, but then again a government is made up of private citizens who I also don't place a lot of faith in either. I just find it baffling that people treat the second amendment as being so untouchable when society is willing to place restrictions on freedom of speech and assembly. When your 1st Amendment rights are trampled on everybody just sighs and goes about their lives. When people even bring up the 2nd Amendment the lobbyists and gun groups are out in full force crying foul. I just don't get it.
when the first amendment is trampled on people do get involved. There just isn't as large a national discussion because most people feel it shouldn't be limited for the most part. However, there is a large vocal portion of the country that believes the second amendment should be limited far greater than others, so you have a pretty passionate group discussing from both sides which gives the appearance that more people care about it...you might be right, some probably do care more about the 2nd, I am just not sure if I see it that way as a rule...
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
AURORA, Colo. (Reuters) - The man accused of Friday's movie theater massacre in Colorado mailed a notebook "full of details about how he was going to kill people" to a University of Colorado psychiatrist before the attack, FoxNews.com reported on Wednesday.
The package allegedly from the suspected shooter, 24-year-old James Eagan Holmes, remained unopened in a mailroom for as long as a week before its discovery Monday, FoxNews.com reported, citing a law enforcement source.
This show, another show, a show here and a show there.
Clearly its two different people, look at the orange hair!
Now you're joking, right?
As Cincy said, there are many subtle differences that can happen between two different pictures -- Years apart, smiling, lighting, aging, shaved/not shaved...this is really digging into desperate conspiracy theory ground.
You would need both pictures taken from the same vertical angle to really compare This proves nothing either way.
I think this is probably taking the whole conspiracy theory a bit too far. Go to a mirror and make a very stern face. After that, grin as widely as you can. Tell me if your lips don't tighten and your nostrils don't flare slightly when you are smiling a really wide grin.
AURORA, Colo. (Reuters) - The man accused of Friday's movie theater massacre in Colorado mailed a notebook "full of details about how he was going to kill people" to a University of Colorado psychiatrist before the attack, FoxNews.com reported on Wednesday.
The package allegedly from the suspected shooter, 24-year-old James Eagan Holmes, remained unopened in a mailroom for as long as a week before its discovery Monday, FoxNews.com reported, citing a law enforcement source.
This is the shits.
"My brain's a good brain!"
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
jeez unsung, you're usually a sane voice here even when i don't agree with you but you're going into tin foil hat territory...don't go there
Ha, well I question everything, especially "official" stories.
The gun picture and witness accounts just don't match what the cops are saying. There was more than one person involved IMO, and we aren't being told the truth.
0
g under p
Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,200
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.
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 agree, JH took the time to carefully plan this crime out for months, now it probably didn't go perfectly according to his plans but he did cause mayhem and a mass killing. Maybe down the road we will find out what set these plans into motion then committing the plans he drew up. I have NO EMPATHY for him and what he did here.
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
jeez unsung, you're usually a sane voice here even when i don't agree with you but you're going into tin foil hat territory...don't go there
Ha, well I question everything, especially "official" stories.
The gun picture and witness accounts just don't match what the cops are saying. There was more than one person involved IMO, and we aren't being told the truth.
...
If he did call someone to let him in... that's easy enough to define. Dump his phone records, which, thanx to The Patriot Act, local authorities, such as Aurora P.D., can legally do. Find out who he called to let hime in.
...
Consider, other witnesses said that he either took a call and left the theater throught the side fire exit and returned through that same door. He may have either proped the door open or taped the latch to keep it from bolting to the door jamb.
Witnesses don't all recall and rely the same thing. It is part of the police work to gather all of the accounts and get the clearest picture that appears.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Yeah, just listening to a bit on the radio about how some are wondering what people would be talking about if James Holmes was Muslim or Black. Pretty interesting shit. I don't know about if it was a Black person or a Latino (maybe drug crime connections?), but I feel pretty positive that everything would be very different if he were a Muslim, i.e. everyone (starting with mainstream media) would be talking about terrorism, all other things being equal. But a white guy has had mental a break from reality, with no other motive likely (btw, there was a big assumption that the DC snipers were white and psycho at first). Long live racial profiling. :?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Yeah, just listening to a bit on the radio about how some are wondering what people would be talking about if James Holmes was Muslim or Black. Pretty interesting shit. I don't know about if it was a Black person or a Latino (maybe drug crime connections?), but I feel pretty positive that everything would be very different if he were a Muslim, i.e. everyone (starting with mainstream media) would be talking about terrorism, all other things being equal. But a white guy has had mental a break from reality, with no other motive likely (btw, there was a big assumption that the DC snipers were white and psycho at first). Long live racial profiling. :?
I think I agree with you -- that the story and coverage wouldn't be that different if he were just non-white -- but yeah if he were Muslim it would be a whole different thing in the media. In their defense, in initial reports they did mention that there were no known ties to terrorism, though that may have been before they knew he was a white guy.
Yeah, just listening to a bit on the radio about how some are wondering what people would be talking about if James Holmes was Muslim or Black. Pretty interesting shit. I don't know about if it was a Black person or a Latino (maybe drug crime connections?), but I feel pretty positive that everything would be very different if he were a Muslim, i.e. everyone (starting with mainstream media) would be talking about terrorism, all other things being equal. But a white guy has had mental a break from reality, with no other motive likely (btw, there was a big assumption that the DC snipers were white and psycho at first). Long live racial profiling. :?
...
Remember Oklahoma City? First assumptions were Arab Terrorists due to the nature and scale of the attack. People were almost in shock when it was discovered to be home-grown white folk from Middle America.
...
And the initial assumption of shoot 'em up gun freak is white male between 17 and 45... because in most cases (with Virginia Tech being an exception), it is. The anomaly here is the inteligence level... not the disgruntled employee going to shoot up his former workplace.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
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...
Ok...your quoting has me a bit boggled :crazy: so not sure if I'm replying to the right part of your post. So guns protect by.....wait for it....killing or injuring or threatening to kill or injure. Unless you use it to repel the bullets à la Wonder Woman's bracelets, in which case you are required to wear her whole outfit. Do you need an assault rifle to do target practice? And even so, why do you then need to keep it in your car or in your home or on your person?
Sure he could kill a lot of people by setting a fire. How many people keep cans of gasoline in their homes or in their cars or on their person? I'm guessing not many...because it's dangerous
Of course people's behavior matters more than the tools, but why have such open access to those tools that serve no other purpose than to injure and kill?
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
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.
no the gun did not walk there on its own... much like they dont walk anywhere on their own.. but i can tell you as awesome logical and persuasive as i am at the talking, if i were confronted by someone holding a firearm id be very very careful how i chose my words.... id certainly change my tone as well as what i said and how i expressed that... and even if id express that.
but youre correct... a gun isnt necessarily needed for intimidation... but it sure as hell would give one pause for thought.... and i know if confronted by someone of less intelligence than me, or one lacking control of their logical faculties and they were holding a firearm, then absolutely i would feel intimidated. to what degree and how i would handle that is another matter.
but i can tell you im def not arrogant enough to think my wits alone would win a gunfight.
Post edited by catefrances on
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
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.
I agree, JH took the time to carefully plan this crime out for months, now it probably didn't go perfectly according to his plans but he did cause mayhem and a mass killing. Maybe down the road we will find out what set these plans into motion then committing the plans he drew up. I have NO EMPATHY for him and what he did here.
Peace
If he is found not to be schizophrenic, not living a delusion, to have a rational mind,
I too will have no empathy ...
but that is not my initial gut feeling.
The OP question is answered in my opinion by addressing mental illness.
The lack of awareness, easily attainable help, affordable help, and education for loved ones
so they can find all three before violence or suicide.
You should fix your quote... you make me look like the bad guy
(Pandora)
I'm not sure what happened to my jumble of quotes. To avoid the problem again, I just italicized your last words. I stand by what I have said and never intended to make my words yours.
There's a 'bad guy' in this discussion?
Is this because he called 'bullshit' to your claim that some of the the victims of the crime have publically empathized with the ruthless killer? Is it the term I used? If so, I must apologize for my crude mannerisms- in my circle of friends... it's commonly used and not deemed offensive. I am seriously not sure what else you would call such utterings the way they sit in my mind?
I'll apologize again, but, "No, seriously I saw it once on CNN in the afternoon sometime" doesn't legitimize your statements. Until proven, they remain outlandish.
Again, if I hear differently... I'll be on this forum, hat in hand, apologizing.
Until then, I think I'm going to leave your comments alone. For at least this topic, we are way too far apart to do anything but argue. We have done enough of that. Have a nice day.
Yes the bullshit term is rude and condescending and truly inappropriate for debate
or even polite discussion. (And I think you meant I not "he")
Those were not my words,
I gave you an estimated time and it sticks with me because it moved my heart.
A young lady and I sat at home from 2pm until we picked up my son from work at 5 pm
watching CNN mostly, flipping maybe to Fox news. Didn't think I would need to prove it
To me what is outlandish is that you would think not a soul in the world
could have empathy for this man. I will give a good lord here and mean that.
I have a feeling church sermons are reflecting on the shooter as well,
giving empathy.
An apology does not contain a BUT because it puts blame on the one receiving it
therefore removing all heartfelt and sincere feeling from it.
An apology is sorry plain and simple.
I agree no need to speak on the subject further... your day as well.
You should fix your quote... you make me look like the bad guy
(Pandora)
I'm not sure what happened to my jumble of quotes. To avoid the problem again, I just italicized your last words. I stand by what I have said and never intended to make my words yours.
There's a 'bad guy' in this discussion?
Is this because he called 'bullshit' to your claim that some of the the victims of the crime have publically empathized with the ruthless killer? Is it the term I used? If so, I must apologize for my crude mannerisms- in my circle of friends... it's commonly used and not deemed offensive. I am seriously not sure what else you would call such utterings the way they sit in my mind?
I'll apologize again, but, "No, seriously I saw it once on CNN in the afternoon sometime" doesn't legitimize your statements. Until proven, they remain outlandish.
Again, if I hear differently... I'll be on this forum, hat in hand, apologizing.
Until then, I think I'm going to leave your comments alone. For at least this topic, we are way too far apart to do anything but argue. We have done enough of that. Have a nice day.
Yes the bullshit term is rude and condescending and truly inappropriate for debate
or even polite discussion. (And I think you meant I not "he")
Those were not my words,
I gave you an estimated time and it sticks with me because it moved my heart.
A young lady and I sat at home from 2pm until we picked up my son from work at 5 pm
watching CNN mostly, flipping maybe to Fox news. Didn't think I would need to prove it
To me what is outlandish is that you would think not a soul in the world
could have empathy for this man. I will give a good lord here and mean that.
I have a feeling church sermons are reflecting on the shooter as well,
giving empathy.
An apology does not contain a BUT because it puts blame on the one receiving it
therefore removing all heartfelt and sincere feeling from it.
An apology is sorry plain and simple.
I agree no need to speak on the subject further... your day as well.
Maybe I wasn't very clear. For clarification's sake... I apologized for the term I used. I never apologized for my reluctance to believe the victims are empathizing with the victim through the media- but said I would apologize again if I ever hear this is actually the case.
I do think there are people that have empathy for this man- I never once implied that (you are living proof). I stated that the victims are not part of that group.
Ok...your quoting has me a bit boggled :crazy: so not sure if I'm replying to the right part of your post.
that's ok, we can just start over. I have all the time in the world.
guns protect by.....wait for it....killing or injuring or threatening to kill or injure. Unless you use it to repel the bullets à la Wonder Woman's bracelets, in which case you are required to wear her whole outfit. Do you need an assault rifle to do target practice? And even so, why do you then need to keep it in your car or in your home or on your person?
Threatening a criminal with bodily harm, or harming them isn't something I am going to lose sleep over. Ever.
threatening the innocent is a crime already punishable.
I have answered this a few times, but no, no one needs an AR-15 or AK-47. No one needs anything but food water and shelter. In fact, most hunters wouldn't use them to hunt because of the caliber of the bullets. they are low caliber for big game if my memory serves correctly, and unless you are a crack shot you will wound an animal rather than, as odd as this sounds, kill it humanely (I get the slight contradiction in that but this isn't an argument about hunting). Most hunters don't go for that.
Sure he could kill a lot of people by setting a fire. How many people keep cans of gasoline in their homes or in their cars or on their person? I'm guessing not many...because it's dangerous
anyone with a lawn mower has at least 2 gallons at home...or they will wish they did when the mower stops working in the middle of the work
87 killed in a new york arson fire at a bar. kind of puts into perspective that people intent on doing harm will do it, and with something he likely purchased for a dollar a gallon.
Of course people's behavior matters more than the tools, but why have such open access to those tools that serve no other purpose than to injure and kill?
I already explained that they do serve other purposes than injuring and killing humans. Target shooting is a fun, stress relieving, adrenaline pumping activity and is a good skill to have. Not acknowledging that fact makes it hard to discuss further with any real hope at a conclusion. Your bias is clear, and so is mine. Prove to the supreme court that guns are a constant clear and present danger and you will be able to limit the 2nd amendment to your heart's desire. Or get a constitutional amendment passed. Those really are the options. Common sense isn't the same to everyone and thinking that all the limits in the world will stop dip-shits from doing this is wrong.
Hand guns kill far more people and are used in far more violent crimes than assault rifles. Regardless of how effective a gun appears to be, the vast majority of the people who own assault rifles are responsible gun owners. Why punish all of them for the actions of a few? I don't understand that rational. That isn't limited to guns by the way, it is in all things.
No one walks around with an assault rifle in the streets. Often times that is illegal. Leaving the house with a loaded weapon in MN without a permit will land you in some serious trouble. They don't just hand out those permits to anyone who wants one by the way.
Hunting shotguns/rifles need to be unloaded in vehicles while transporting them. as well as being unloaded, they need to be out of reach by vehicle passengers but you may get some leeway depending on what you are doing.
We have an extremely high murder rate comparatively, do you think they go away with less guns? i don't know if I agree with that. You can point to other countries and say the gun laws there are strict and look, less murders and violent crime. To some degree you may be right. But correlation doesn't = causality. I could hand you a rock and tell you it protects you from tiger attacks, and if you live on earth you will probably not be attacked by a tiger. Doesn't mean that the rock protected you...it probably means there is a Host of other reasons as to why you weren't attacked, mystical powers of the rock not withstanding of course. point being, we need to figure out our penchant in the US to "take things out side" to punch/stab/shoot first and ask questions later attitude that is so prevalent. That is my greater concern, it isn't what those people use to kill that concerns me.
Best statistics I could find in one place
Homicides by Weapon Used, 2000-2008
Totals, 2000-2008 % of total
Handguns 65,581 51%
Rifles 3,791 3% should add that it isn't necessarily assault rifles.
Shotguns 4,356 3%
Other firearm not specified or type unknown 820 1%
Firearms, type not stated 11,564 9%
Firearm subtotals 86,112 66%
Knives or cutting instruments 16,547 13%
Blunt Objects 5,782 4%
Personal Weapons 8,220 6%
Poison 106 0%
Explosives 43 0%
Fire 1,093 1%
Narcotics 408 0%
Drowning 150 0%
Strangulation 1,281 1%
Asphyxiation 948 1%
All other 9,051 7%
All other weapons subtotals 43,629 34%
Total, all types: 129,741 100%
Interesting stats from the census bureau. Tells me that I have a better chance of being stabbed to death than killed by an assault rifle. But maybe I am wrong...I mean even if you factor in all types of guns not known and consider them assault rifles...add that to the total of all rifles (hunting and assault) it is still less. I don't know, but I am now terrified of cutting tools I can tell you that.
I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge the fact that accidental discharge deaths would be preventable if guns were completely banned. That is a fair amount of people, same with suicide (although don't know how many of them would have still done it).
I understand the want for gun control in the country, but do we need it is the better question isn't 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
Yeah, just listening to a bit on the radio about how some are wondering what people would be talking about if James Holmes was Muslim or Black. Pretty interesting shit. I don't know about if it was a Black person or a Latino (maybe drug crime connections?), but I feel pretty positive that everything would be very different if he were a Muslim, i.e. everyone (starting with mainstream media) would be talking about terrorism, all other things being equal. But a white guy has had mental a break from reality, with no other motive likely (btw, there was a big assumption that the DC snipers were white and psycho at first). Long live racial profiling. :?
right, if he were muslim he would have obviously killed those people because he hated their freedom. Anyone who can't see that is blind.
But in defense of the "white guy snapped" thing...isn't that pretty common among white mass murders, that they have snapped? And how many African American mass murdering psycho's have their been? It is much more of a white problem I think...I am going to have to look into this...People in gangs who murder and other areas of life definitely have something wrong with them, but to go this crazy and do this kind of thing is a much larger white issue isn't it? I mean, McVeigh was crazy, most of the serial killers are crazy, intelligence level not eliminating their craziness.
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
Yeah, just listening to a bit on the radio about how some are wondering what people would be talking about if James Holmes was Muslim or Black. Pretty interesting shit. I don't know about if it was a Black person or a Latino (maybe drug crime connections?), but I feel pretty positive that everything would be very different if he were a Muslim, i.e. everyone (starting with mainstream media) would be talking about terrorism, all other things being equal. But a white guy has had mental a break from reality, with no other motive likely (btw, there was a big assumption that the DC snipers were white and psycho at first). Long live racial profiling. :?
right, if he were muslim he would have obviously killed those people because he hated their freedom. Anyone who can't see that is blind.
But in defense of the "white guy snapped" thing...isn't that pretty common among white mass murders, that they have snapped? And how many African American mass murdering psycho's have their been? It is much more of a white problem I think...I am going to have to look into this...People in gangs who murder and other areas of life definitely have something wrong with them, but to go this crazy and do this kind of thing is a much larger white issue isn't it? I mean, McVeigh was crazy, most of the serial killers are crazy, intelligence level not eliminating their craziness.
Gang murders usually have motives though. That's what so disturbing about this intelligent white guy thing, with no criminal history or motive. Just snapped? :? But I think you're right there's a trend with serial killers and mass murderer I think.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4Gv3PG ... r_embedded
This is the problem that I have with the Second Amendment. The way it is read is so broad that in theory it should allow a person to possess any and all weaponry available. The argument is absurd. The clear and present danger test actually places a limit on the 1st Amendment yet good luck placing similar limits on the 2nd Amendment. I don't think there's a chance that it would be upheld by the Supreme Court. Any limits on firearms seem purely arbitrary. Even the right to defend one's self is subjective.
I'm sure there will be a day when Americans will have the right to possess fully automatic weapons, but I can't for the life of me understand the rationale for allowing it. I don't really trust most governments, but then again a government is made up of private citizens who I also don't place a lot of faith in either. I just find it baffling that people treat the second amendment as being so untouchable when society is willing to place restrictions on freedom of speech and assembly. When your 1st Amendment rights are trampled on everybody just sighs and goes about their lives. When people even bring up the 2nd Amendment the lobbyists and gun groups are out in full force crying foul. I just don't get it.
Then again, as long as you aren't bringing your weaponry into my back yard (Canada), it's not really a major issue for me.
Come on... you are smarter than that. You know witness accounts can vary... i.e., several people see the same event and several different accounts are retold. Especially in a chaotic atmosphere where you are scrambling for your life and not concentrating on recording details.
Let the forensics tell the tale.
Hail, Hail!!!
You would need both pictures taken from the same vertical angle to really compare This proves nothing either way.
(Pandora)
I'm not sure what happened to my jumble of quotes. To avoid the problem again, I just italicized your last words. I stand by what I have said and never intended to make my words yours.
There's a 'bad guy' in this discussion?
Is this because he called 'bullshit' to your claim that some of the the victims of the crime have publically empathized with the ruthless killer? Is it the term I used? If so, I must apologize for my crude mannerisms- in my circle of friends... it's commonly used and not deemed offensive. I am seriously not sure what else you would call such utterings the way they sit in my mind?
I'll apologize again, but, "No, seriously I saw it once on CNN in the afternoon sometime" doesn't legitimize your statements. Until proven, they remain outlandish.
Again, if I hear differently... I'll be on this forum, hat in hand, apologizing.
Until then, I think I'm going to leave your comments alone. For at least this topic, we are way too far apart to do anything but argue. We have done enough of that. Have a nice day.
Be very VERY careful about putting words in someone's mouth by messing up their quoted text please. It's not difficult to fix it. I have fixed it on the previous post in question. Also, see the Posting Guidelines...especially about treating each other with respect. It's possible to debate politely.
Possibly, but the clear and present danger test would be applied to nuclear weapons. You could argue that each and every fire arm is a clear and present danger at all times, I would say that you would have a very difficult time proving that...
when the first amendment is trampled on people do get involved. There just isn't as large a national discussion because most people feel it shouldn't be limited for the most part. However, there is a large vocal portion of the country that believes the second amendment should be limited far greater than others, so you have a pretty passionate group discussing from both sides which gives the appearance that more people care about it...you might be right, some probably do care more about the 2nd, I am just not sure if I see it that way as a rule...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
The package allegedly from the suspected shooter, 24-year-old James Eagan Holmes, remained unopened in a mailroom for as long as a week before its discovery Monday, FoxNews.com reported, citing a law enforcement source.
Clearly its two different people, look at the orange hair!
Now you're joking, right?
As Cincy said, there are many subtle differences that can happen between two different pictures -- Years apart, smiling, lighting, aging, shaved/not shaved...this is really digging into desperate conspiracy theory ground.
http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07 ... s-say?lite
I think this is probably taking the whole conspiracy theory a bit too far. Go to a mirror and make a very stern face. After that, grin as widely as you can. Tell me if your lips don't tighten and your nostrils don't flare slightly when you are smiling a really wide grin.
This is the shits.
Ha, well I question everything, especially "official" stories.
The gun picture and witness accounts just don't match what the cops are saying. There was more than one person involved IMO, and we aren't being told the truth.
I agree, JH took the time to carefully plan this crime out for months, now it probably didn't go perfectly according to his plans but he did cause mayhem and a mass killing. Maybe down the road we will find out what set these plans into motion then committing the plans he drew up. I have NO EMPATHY for him and what he did here.
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
If he did call someone to let him in... that's easy enough to define. Dump his phone records, which, thanx to The Patriot Act, local authorities, such as Aurora P.D., can legally do. Find out who he called to let hime in.
...
Consider, other witnesses said that he either took a call and left the theater throught the side fire exit and returned through that same door. He may have either proped the door open or taped the latch to keep it from bolting to the door jamb.
Witnesses don't all recall and rely the same thing. It is part of the police work to gather all of the accounts and get the clearest picture that appears.
Hail, Hail!!!
Remember Oklahoma City? First assumptions were Arab Terrorists due to the nature and scale of the attack. People were almost in shock when it was discovered to be home-grown white folk from Middle America.
...
And the initial assumption of shoot 'em up gun freak is white male between 17 and 45... because in most cases (with Virginia Tech being an exception), it is. The anomaly here is the inteligence level... not the disgruntled employee going to shoot up his former workplace.
Hail, Hail!!!
Sure he could kill a lot of people by setting a fire. How many people keep cans of gasoline in their homes or in their cars or on their person? I'm guessing not many...because it's dangerous
Of course people's behavior matters more than the tools, but why have such open access to those tools that serve no other purpose than to injure and kill?
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
no the gun did not walk there on its own... much like they dont walk anywhere on their own.. but i can tell you as awesome logical and persuasive as i am at the talking, if i were confronted by someone holding a firearm id be very very careful how i chose my words.... id certainly change my tone as well as what i said and how i expressed that... and even if id express that.
but youre correct... a gun isnt necessarily needed for intimidation... but it sure as hell would give one pause for thought.... and i know if confronted by someone of less intelligence than me, or one lacking control of their logical faculties and they were holding a firearm, then absolutely i would feel intimidated. to what degree and how i would handle that is another matter.
but i can tell you im def not arrogant enough to think my wits alone would win a gunfight.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I too will have no empathy ...
but that is not my initial gut feeling.
The OP question is answered in my opinion by addressing mental illness.
The lack of awareness, easily attainable help, affordable help, and education for loved ones
so they can find all three before violence or suicide.
Yes the bullshit term is rude and condescending and truly inappropriate for debate
or even polite discussion. (And I think you meant I not "he")
Those were not my words,
I gave you an estimated time and it sticks with me because it moved my heart.
A young lady and I sat at home from 2pm until we picked up my son from work at 5 pm
watching CNN mostly, flipping maybe to Fox news. Didn't think I would need to prove it
To me what is outlandish is that you would think not a soul in the world
could have empathy for this man. I will give a good lord here and mean that.
I have a feeling church sermons are reflecting on the shooter as well,
giving empathy.
An apology does not contain a BUT because it puts blame on the one receiving it
therefore removing all heartfelt and sincere feeling from it.
An apology is sorry plain and simple.
I agree no need to speak on the subject further... your day as well.
Maybe I wasn't very clear. For clarification's sake... I apologized for the term I used. I never apologized for my reluctance to believe the victims are empathizing with the victim through the media- but said I would apologize again if I ever hear this is actually the case.
I do think there are people that have empathy for this man- I never once implied that (you are living proof). I stated that the victims are not part of that group.
that's ok, we can just start over. I have all the time in the world.
Threatening a criminal with bodily harm, or harming them isn't something I am going to lose sleep over. Ever.
threatening the innocent is a crime already punishable.
I have answered this a few times, but no, no one needs an AR-15 or AK-47. No one needs anything but food water and shelter. In fact, most hunters wouldn't use them to hunt because of the caliber of the bullets. they are low caliber for big game if my memory serves correctly, and unless you are a crack shot you will wound an animal rather than, as odd as this sounds, kill it humanely (I get the slight contradiction in that but this isn't an argument about hunting). Most hunters don't go for that.
anyone with a lawn mower has at least 2 gallons at home...or they will wish they did when the mower stops working in the middle of the work
87 killed in a new york arson fire at a bar. kind of puts into perspective that people intent on doing harm will do it, and with something he likely purchased for a dollar a gallon.
I already explained that they do serve other purposes than injuring and killing humans. Target shooting is a fun, stress relieving, adrenaline pumping activity and is a good skill to have. Not acknowledging that fact makes it hard to discuss further with any real hope at a conclusion. Your bias is clear, and so is mine. Prove to the supreme court that guns are a constant clear and present danger and you will be able to limit the 2nd amendment to your heart's desire. Or get a constitutional amendment passed. Those really are the options. Common sense isn't the same to everyone and thinking that all the limits in the world will stop dip-shits from doing this is wrong.
Hand guns kill far more people and are used in far more violent crimes than assault rifles. Regardless of how effective a gun appears to be, the vast majority of the people who own assault rifles are responsible gun owners. Why punish all of them for the actions of a few? I don't understand that rational. That isn't limited to guns by the way, it is in all things.
No one walks around with an assault rifle in the streets. Often times that is illegal. Leaving the house with a loaded weapon in MN without a permit will land you in some serious trouble. They don't just hand out those permits to anyone who wants one by the way.
Hunting shotguns/rifles need to be unloaded in vehicles while transporting them. as well as being unloaded, they need to be out of reach by vehicle passengers but you may get some leeway depending on what you are doing.
We have an extremely high murder rate comparatively, do you think they go away with less guns? i don't know if I agree with that. You can point to other countries and say the gun laws there are strict and look, less murders and violent crime. To some degree you may be right. But correlation doesn't = causality. I could hand you a rock and tell you it protects you from tiger attacks, and if you live on earth you will probably not be attacked by a tiger. Doesn't mean that the rock protected you...it probably means there is a Host of other reasons as to why you weren't attacked, mystical powers of the rock not withstanding of course. point being, we need to figure out our penchant in the US to "take things out side" to punch/stab/shoot first and ask questions later attitude that is so prevalent. That is my greater concern, it isn't what those people use to kill that concerns me.
Best statistics I could find in one place
Homicides by Weapon Used, 2000-2008
Totals, 2000-2008 % of total
Handguns 65,581 51%
Rifles 3,791 3% should add that it isn't necessarily assault rifles.
Shotguns 4,356 3%
Other firearm not specified or type unknown 820 1%
Firearms, type not stated 11,564 9%
Firearm subtotals 86,112 66%
Knives or cutting instruments 16,547 13%
Blunt Objects 5,782 4%
Personal Weapons 8,220 6%
Poison 106 0%
Explosives 43 0%
Fire 1,093 1%
Narcotics 408 0%
Drowning 150 0%
Strangulation 1,281 1%
Asphyxiation 948 1%
All other 9,051 7%
All other weapons subtotals 43,629 34%
Total, all types: 129,741 100%
Interesting stats from the census bureau. Tells me that I have a better chance of being stabbed to death than killed by an assault rifle. But maybe I am wrong...I mean even if you factor in all types of guns not known and consider them assault rifles...add that to the total of all rifles (hunting and assault) it is still less. I don't know, but I am now terrified of cutting tools I can tell you that.
I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge the fact that accidental discharge deaths would be preventable if guns were completely banned. That is a fair amount of people, same with suicide (although don't know how many of them would have still done it).
I understand the want for gun control in the country, but do we need it is the better question isn't it?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
right, if he were muslim he would have obviously killed those people because he hated their freedom. Anyone who can't see that is blind.
But in defense of the "white guy snapped" thing...isn't that pretty common among white mass murders, that they have snapped? And how many African American mass murdering psycho's have their been? It is much more of a white problem I think...I am going to have to look into this...People in gangs who murder and other areas of life definitely have something wrong with them, but to go this crazy and do this kind of thing is a much larger white issue isn't it? I mean, McVeigh was crazy, most of the serial killers are crazy, intelligence level not eliminating their craziness.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Gang murders usually have motives though. That's what so disturbing about this intelligent white guy thing, with no criminal history or motive. Just snapped? :? But I think you're right there's a trend with serial killers and mass murderer I think.