Colorado movie theatre shooting

"Sir?" A hippy calling me "Sir"?

I smell a not-so-subtle undermining of my Authoritar, Son!


{{{And a rather adroit bit of self-stereotyping there, David, what? }}}

{{{}}}

Just read that article dave, its very scary and sickening, it seems unbelievable its so bad. I hope something gets done to prevent these cold blooded killers from doing this again.

Thats the sort of thing that makes you think the worst of police. Just another gang in a uniform.

It's worse if you listen to the tapes they've released. Heartbreaking really.

The man doesn't sound as confused or drunk as the news implies. He's under attack in his home, and he's going into the tunnel vision state that Orwell refers to, falling back on his Marine Corps training from Vietnam era.

In his mind he's identified this as a freindly-fire attack and he's trying to call off the strike, explaining to the police that he's OK, calling back to the healthcare monitoring service to explain what's going on and asking them to call off the attack.

When he's calling out "Sempre Fi" and "Hooraah!" he's calling for any fellow Marines in the area to come to his assistance, probably hoping that one of the officers might have had Cops training.

Although he was old, this man was a trained professional even more than the men attacking him. He deserved a whole lot more respect than he received. I couldn't help thinking of my own father.

it is heartbreaking Dave, its frightening to know these people were allowed to continue on the force. I hope there is a public outcry and something is done to help his family.

According to the BBC the killer had; 'Over the course of eight weeks he bought 6,300 rounds of ammunition: 3,000 for a .233 semi-automatic AR-15 rifle, 3,000 for two .40 Glock 22 pistols and 300 cartridges for a pump-action shotgun. Mr Holmes bought the four weapons legally.'

My mind boggles at people just being able to buy this stuff like they are buying gorceries. I just don't get it, it seems completely bonkers to me, as does why Americans are so pro-guns.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:My mind boggles at people just being able to buy this stuff like they are buying gorceries. I just don't get it, it seems completely bonkers to me, as does why Americans are so pro-guns.

I have to wholeheartedly agree here. And for the record I am not anti gun, but gun control seems a no brainer to me!

You won't see any major public official advocating gun control in an election year. Early efforts at gun control were so clumsy that many people who would otherwise favor reasonable gun restrictions now don't trust the federal government to impose and enforce them fairly.

If gun control reform is to come to the US, I think it will have to come about first by cities then by states, the same way gay marriage is progressing. If the people of Colorado were to start protesting for more regulations right now, something might happen, but I'd be surprised if the people want that.

The same thing with alcohol restrictions. There are something like 70 thousand alcohol related deaths in the US each year (over twice the number gun related deaths), but extra regulations and taxes on alcohol aren't popular either. Crazy, right?

Its the bit where the people dont want it that kind of confuses me. Why do Americans want to have so many weapons in their society in the first place?

Early efforts at gun control were so clumsy that many people who would otherwise favor reasonable gun restrictions now don't trust the federal government to impose and enforce them fairly.

In what way and why not?

Now I don't know much about regs here in the UK but as far as I'm aware to have a gun at home you need a reason to have it (farmer/gamekeeper or as a sporstman.), a license and a proper cabinet that locks to keep it in. (bolted to the wall to stop it being nicked easily.) Anyone can still apply; if you're a member of a gun club you can get your own, but it just means there are a few checks. I knew lads when I was at school who had a shotgun licence, there are lads I teach now who have them. It just means that people who have them have some knowledge of them and their dangers.

I suppose I have a typical distorted view, but from the outside it often seems as if the objection boils down to... because I should be able to go get a gun if I want one....

Different reasons. If you live in the rural parts of the the country like here, you need something for protecting your animals, putting them down, etc. and when law enforcement usually can't get here for 24 hours, the knowledge that everybody has at least a shotgun kind of keeps everybody honest. Also, most military veterans feel they've earned the right to carry the weapon they've been trained to feel naked without. (That's the big reason the AR-15 that was used in this tragedy is still available.) People who own or work in all night gas and convenience stores feel safer with a gun under the counter. Hunters.... well, it goes on and on.

And the real reason is that the National Rifle Association has researched all this and brought all the little groups together into one of the largest and most powerful lobbies in Washington DC. That's the real problem. They are dictating the discussions that ought to be happening among all the smaller interest groups.

If you live in the rural parts of the the country like here, you need something for protecting your animals, putting them down,

And farmers still have guns, just with a licence (but vets put animals down).

and when law enforcement usually can't get here for 24 hours, the knowledge that everybody has at least a shotgun kind of keeps everybody honest.

Don't think a gun makes a difference, only makes it more likely the crims will carry too and more likely shots will get fired.

most military veterans feel they've earned the right to carry the weapon they've been trained to feel naked without

And they could stiil have one as part of being part of a gun club.. (although this is a principle I disagree with and I think is at the heart of the issue. I don't believe anyone has a right to a gun, they are more of a necessary evil.

People who own or work in all night gas and convenience stores feel safer with a gun under the counter.

As above, I don't actually think this is treu, it simply rasies the stakes and makes harm more likely.

Hunters....

We still have shoots and our equivalent of hunters.. would still be able to have a gun... just need a licence first.

I appreciate that this is as much a list of examples of reasons not necessarily personal views, just trrying to show why I think they don't form a sufficient argument agaisnt gun control.

And the real reason is that the National Rifle Association has researched all this and brought all the little groups together into one of the largest and most powerful lobbies in Washington DC.

hmm.... this is the point where I lamblast the us political system is it?........... think I'll leave that in the wake of the continuing scandals here... papers and banks etc.....

Kafia, please understand I'm not advocating. I'm just describing. There are hundreds of thousands of people who hold each of these views, and the NRA has welded them into an alliance, even if one group may think the others are a bit extreme.

As a farmer, I will be a bit of an apologist however. I grew up with a gun just being another potentially dangerous tool like an ax or a kitchen knife that you're not allowed to play with, but is the best tool for certain jobs. The last time I used a gun was a few months ago to put a coyote that had been run over by a car out of his misery. I hate to see anything suffer. A vet visit costs $150. A bullet costs 25 cents. In our community I don't think we've had a fatal gun incident in 30 years except for suicides. (That one 30 years ago was a domestic murder suicide and people still talk about it.) Can you see why we don't feel we have a problem here?

And to be clear, I'd love to see a licensing requirement similar to a driver's license. Guns can be dangerous and there are too many untrained people hurting themselves and others. But I doubt that this recent shooter would have had any problem getting a license if he can build bombs and get full body armor. I wouldn't know where to begin to get that!

David, I know you were simply giving me the reasons I asked for.

I don't disagree about a gun being a tool. Although not a from a farming family myself, I did at the age of 9 move into a rural communtiy and grew up beating for the shoots and with friends who were farmers helping catch moles or put rabbits with myx out of their misery (I have a very vivid memory of one of the lads putting a rabbit down!) I can understand both that and the sports/ hunting use. As I said...those who know and understand the dangers.

I can also understand the draw of a untied banner when smaller groups are often ignored. I can't understand this idea that anybody, by virtue of existing, has the right to one regadless.


Just seen your addition and I agree that licencing does not stop these tradgedies,we have them here too.

Being a predominantly rural area where I live, the hunting season is regulated by particular months and times of day. People also have to have a gun licence, but there are many fatal accidents where people shoot their hunting buddies in the woods, every year we hear of maybe 5 just in our province. These people are supposedly experts and should know the difference between a boar and a person, but they still die. also I was shot at whilst in my garden, the bullet going about a couple of feet from my head, this moron was only using pellets and was aiming for a bird, but even so its bloody dangerous to go out walking when the hunting season starts., you see the empty cartridges littered about, and the noise is unsettling, hopefully one day it will be only farmers that use guns because it makes me nervous.

I doubt that this recent shooter would have had any problem getting a license if he can build bombs and get full body armor.- David

In the Uk you need to have a reason for owning a gun- it is unlikely here he would have been able to get one legitamtely unless he was a farmer or some such. The average citizen couldnt buy a gun legally if they wanted to without first going through being a gun club member for some time, making applications and being vetted and even then there are a list of restrictions (some which Kafria alrady mentioned) covering how the weapon must be used and stored.

This of course does not stop the occasional tradegy happening anyway. And if a nutter is determined they could always make explosives out of household goods anyway- but that takes a bit of nohow and a bit of effort- just being able to buy assualt rifles and the like because you want one makes it all a bit to easy for the casual on a whim nutjob, it seems crazy to me.

Its much the same here Mrs Figg, although a bit less chaotic (and dangerous) sounding, grouse season is upon us here and that means tourists (mainly Americans it has to be said) shooting at grouse. But thats on estates, under license and supervision.

Kafria wrote:

Early efforts at gun control were so clumsy that many people who would otherwise favor reasonable gun restrictions now don't trust the federal government to impose and enforce them fairly.

In what way and why not?

Now I don't know much about regs here in the UK but as far as I'm aware to have a gun at home you need a reason to have it (farmer/gamekeeper or as a sporstman.), a license and a proper cabinet that locks to keep it in. (bolted to the wall to stop it being nicked easily.) Anyone can still apply; if you're a member of a gun club you can get your own, but it just means there are a few checks. I knew lads when I was at school who had a shotgun licence, there are lads I teach now who have them. It just means that people who have them have some knowledge of them and their dangers.

I suppose I have a typical distorted view, but from the outside it often seems as if the objection boils down to... because I should be able to go get a gun if I want one....

Glad to see you dear mayor.
Here in Canada guns were only for officers of the law, farmers, and those registered in gun clubs (shiver.) But with the watching of American television and the influx of folk from across the border from big cities is is dangerous here now too and how sad. One Christmas we had just moved from the living room to go downstairs to the sitting room when shots were fired through the neighborhood. Two through our living room window and one through the front window of our car. It was traumatizing to be sure. And a poor girl from a family member's work place was shot at several times as she walked home. She ran and ran and hid and then other motorists called for help and watched over her as much as they dared. The shooters were from a big city and were just having 'fun' trying to kill people. And to think a few years back no one bothered locking doors much. dreadful I have read several interviews with ordinary teens with no priors against them saying that the exciting shows from the States motivate them to dress the same and want guns for their very own. So, to me , there are enough susceptible folk, old and young in our country who would be affected by violence on the screen enough to go out and mindlessly imitate them.

I'm sure that's a major factor Leelee. As violent movies and first-person-shooter video games are more and more a part of people's lives, it's hard to argue that they don't provide a roadmap for thrillseekers and the occasional psychopath such as this one. Unfortunately I don't see a simple answer.

I just dont buy the violent tv and games argument. I was watching Hammer Horror before I was 10- in my teens it was evil dead, texas chainsaw, the hlls have eyes, halloween, friday 13th ect- and the whole time I was playing games as well- it didnt turn me into a crazy killer, doesnt seem to have done so to my younger brother either who has more of the games immersion than I had (hard to get worked up over the old graphics- didn't stop people trying mind).
My entire life I've heard this, first it was tv was bad for everyone, then it was videos are evil, then it was games are evil, then it was the internet is evil.

Nasty, severe, brutal violence has existed in society long before any of this came about. Arguably it was much worse.
Indeed it could be said if any piece of 'art' is reposnsible its literature- as more wars have been fought over the contents of religous books than anything else.

In my view people dont go crazy because of violent images, they respond unhealthily to violent images because they are crazy.

That's not the point Petty. Of course violent movies and games don't make people kill, just like owning guns doesn't make people kill, and flight simulators don't make you fly airplanes into buildings anymore than airplanes do.

The point is that a very small percentage of the population who are angry and destructive now have a) knowledge, b)practice and c)tools to cause harm on a grander scale. There's little doubt from all the stuff found in his room that this recent murderer found inspiration from the Dark Knight movies, and I'd be surprised if he didn't methodically practice his assault on a computer game while he was acquiring the guns and bombs, just like the Norwegian killer did. I understand the 911 hijackers practiced on computer flight simulators that a few years before would have been only available to the military. The technology doesn't cause the crime, but it can certainly makes it all much easier.
In the case of the shooters Leelee is talking about, I suspect that in different times that didn't romanticize guns so much they'd have ended up beating up drunks and throwing rocks through windows. The movies just set their aspirations for mayhem higher, the games give them a practice medium and an endorphin rush expectation, and the easy availability of guns gives them the opportunity.

It's all a package, and to me it seems as silly to call the guns crazy and the games harmless as the other way around.

Short of braining someone to death you cant go to a shop, buy a game and kill someone- you can with a gun- seems a pretty big difference to me.
Saying its society and ignoring the ridiculous list of lethal weapons he could easily buy and stockpile seem silly to me.
I really dont believe for a second practising on games would help anyone prepare. Real life and games are nothing alike. You could as easily say the Bible was to blame for its violent imagery, or Tom and Jerry cartoons- all that does is take blame away from where it lies- with the person who committed the crime.
Its impossible to legislate fully against such people but it is possible to make it harder from them- having freely available lethal weaponry and ammunition is one of the obvious places to start looking for ways to reduce this sort of thing- what I expect to hear is the ususal rhetoric that games and films should be censored, or banned or some other silly idea that does nothing to address this kind of thing.
Another apect to look at is mental health care in the US- should he have been picked up sooner by his school or health authority. Is there room for improvement in such detections? Those sort of questions can lead to useful or helpful answers that might actually help- its culture's fault gets us nowhere.
Thats what I reckon anyway.

Oh come on, Petty.
Of course it's the individual's fault, and I absolutely agree about mental healthcare.

But how does a peaceful farmer like me even know what an AR-15 with an extended magazine is? Most of my knowledge comes from movies and television. I certainly don't have any use for those things on the farm! And I seem to recall the Norway murderer quoted as saying that he was repulsed by the action of killing but he made himself do it for months on a game until it was reflex. Desensitization is an important element in this discussion.

It's not a matter of blame, but can you really doubt that society has a major influence on the actions of individuals? And if so, why shouldn't we look at this as part of a solution? Unless we're just prepared to live with the problem, as I suspect many people are.

Personally, I'd love to see assault weapons heavily restricted or outright banned for civilian use for the same reason I'd like to see certain of the games regulated and restricted, and mental health care expanded. But to do one without the others doesn't make much sense to me. It's like patching only 2 of 3 holes in a leaky bucket.

but can you really doubt that society has a major influence on the actions of individuals?- David

Yes, I do doubt it. Or at least I think it is a tiny part of it. The persons immediate society, their family, friends upbringing, socialisations ect I believe are far more likely to be influencing factors than society at large.
Entertainment in society always follows the society, the media doesn't lead it. If films, tv and games are violent it is a reflection of our society- but the violence in society is not caused by the media. Its blaming the tail for wagging the dog.

And I would be very suprised if you could desensitise yourself by playing games- Ive been playing games for 30 years and I still dont like having to deal with blood and gore in real life, I am not desensitised to it at all from that- if anything I have become somewhat desensitised to it over the years dealing with it as part of my job as a carer. By that measure being a carer as had more effect on me than decades of violent games and films.
But it would obviously be ridiculous to suggest care work leads to violence.

I am largely completely opposed to censorship of art- as it always come down to one group deciding what everyone else should hear and see and that is more dangerous for a society I think in the long run.