You shoot him. Getting shot, body armor or not, fucking hurts. At the very least the guy could've taken a moment to assess the situation after being shot and maybe allowed a few more people to escape.Carnagath said:
Dark Knight Rises Shooting Leaves 12 Dead
- Thread starter John Funk
- Start date
Gun control won't work - you've already got the guns on your shores. You've already got the culture of using guns to solve problems. The US fetishizes guns, holding them up as a symbol of power and masculinity. The willingness to use guns, the sheer enjoyment that comes with using guns, the feeling of power that comes with gun ownership is too rooted in US culture to be removed.
I would be in favor of passing US gun laws.... if I had a time machine and I could go back 150 years to do it. Back then, it would have made a difference. Now, however? It makes no difference at all. The guns won't stop coming in, the criminals already use them, the public still wants them.
I'm glad my nation, Australia, has avoided such a mess. Surprisingly, we've remained a democracy even with very low levels of civilian gun ownership! That's right, we haven't had to fight off our government, and almost certainly will never have to. We're not paranoid about "government-takeover", unlike Conservative Americans who believe that anytime the government does something they don't approve of, it's evidence of the death of liberty itself!
But on the shooting - terrible. Terrible tragedy. You've got to wonder why such things happen with more frequency in the US than in Australia... UK... Japan... Ireland... Norway... Belgium... or most of the developed world. That's not to say that we don't have mass shootings in other countries - I'm just saying that they are a whole lot rarer, even when taking into account population differences.
Look, America, I love a lot of things about you. Your constitution is still one of the greatest, if not THE greatest political documents in all of human history. I marvel at your size, your achievements, your science and your universities. I love the sense of optimism that some Americans still retain. I love many aspects of your culture and history and I can safely say that I wish to never see America fall. I wish you success and continued prosperity.
But that doesn't mean I agree with everything you do, nor does it mean I think you're perfect. On gun culture, the US has something very, VERY wrong with it. Why are guns so widely used? Why are your people so angry? Few other developed nations have this problem. Your culture, previously orderly and optimistic, has turned sick and cynical and angry. And it hurts me to see that - to see a nation of people who looked up and forward, a nation which believed in civility and civilization (at least at home if not necessarily abroad) turn into a nation of angry, angry people who hate each other over relatively minor things. A nation full of people who feel so insecure, so pathetic, that they seek refuge in the power that holding a gun can give them. That feeling of raw power, the feeling that their gun makes them a "badass". You can't deny it - even among responsible gun owners, there is a allure of the "power" of a gun. Just see those photos of men and bikini clad women posing with their assault rifles, trying to look as menacing and "badass" as possible. You've created a culture in which people feel powerful with guns, and feel that they have to use them to feel powerful and "respected". That culture is poisoning you, America. Your culture of violence is your worst enemy.
I would be in favor of passing US gun laws.... if I had a time machine and I could go back 150 years to do it. Back then, it would have made a difference. Now, however? It makes no difference at all. The guns won't stop coming in, the criminals already use them, the public still wants them.
I'm glad my nation, Australia, has avoided such a mess. Surprisingly, we've remained a democracy even with very low levels of civilian gun ownership! That's right, we haven't had to fight off our government, and almost certainly will never have to. We're not paranoid about "government-takeover", unlike Conservative Americans who believe that anytime the government does something they don't approve of, it's evidence of the death of liberty itself!
But on the shooting - terrible. Terrible tragedy. You've got to wonder why such things happen with more frequency in the US than in Australia... UK... Japan... Ireland... Norway... Belgium... or most of the developed world. That's not to say that we don't have mass shootings in other countries - I'm just saying that they are a whole lot rarer, even when taking into account population differences.
Look, America, I love a lot of things about you. Your constitution is still one of the greatest, if not THE greatest political documents in all of human history. I marvel at your size, your achievements, your science and your universities. I love the sense of optimism that some Americans still retain. I love many aspects of your culture and history and I can safely say that I wish to never see America fall. I wish you success and continued prosperity.
But that doesn't mean I agree with everything you do, nor does it mean I think you're perfect. On gun culture, the US has something very, VERY wrong with it. Why are guns so widely used? Why are your people so angry? Few other developed nations have this problem. Your culture, previously orderly and optimistic, has turned sick and cynical and angry. And it hurts me to see that - to see a nation of people who looked up and forward, a nation which believed in civility and civilization (at least at home if not necessarily abroad) turn into a nation of angry, angry people who hate each other over relatively minor things. A nation full of people who feel so insecure, so pathetic, that they seek refuge in the power that holding a gun can give them. That feeling of raw power, the feeling that their gun makes them a "badass". You can't deny it - even among responsible gun owners, there is a allure of the "power" of a gun. Just see those photos of men and bikini clad women posing with their assault rifles, trying to look as menacing and "badass" as possible. You've created a culture in which people feel powerful with guns, and feel that they have to use them to feel powerful and "respected". That culture is poisoning you, America. Your culture of violence is your worst enemy.
It is also childish to assume that "putting a gun in everyone's hand" will stop these crimes or prevent massacres. What, the people in the movie theater couldn't already own a gun if they chose to? See, whenever events like these happen, many people will go for one side or the other on the gun debate, (obviously the "this is why we need gun control!" to "if everyone had a gun this wouldn't have happened!", which I disagree with both sentiments), it's not like gun control is so strict in this country that people couldn't own a gun even if they wanted to.Tanis said:Picture is a LITTLE old, but the point still stands...GoddyofAus said:
I'll tell you this:
If just two or three people in that theater were armed, and went through the proper training...there would probably be a LOT less bodies.
The only thing strict gun control laws do is disarm LAW FOLLOWING CITIZENS.
IF a crazy person or a scum bag wants a weapon, they-will-find-a-way-to-get-it.
NORMAL PEOPLE DON'T DO CRAP LIKE THIS.
It's childish to think that 'banning all the guns' will stop criminals, or prevent massacres.
I really find that particular argument in the wake of these tragedies pretty insulting, as in a way it sort of assumes that everyone would want a gun and that everyone should just instantly have one just for extremely rare instances such as this. The people in that movie theater did not own guns (or brought them to the theater) primarily because they did not want guns or they didn't think that they'd need to protect themselves from a maniac. Hindsight is 20-20, but that doesn't mean we have to be so paranoid as to want everyone to have a gun at all times to deter an extremely rare type of criminal who would have done it no matter what in the end.
For the record, I'm more for "gun education" rather than banning, though I do feel it is a bit too easy to access weaponry, mainly for mentally disturbed people, etc...
Fuck off to all people in this thead who are arguing for a ban on guns.
Fuck off to all people in this thread who are arguing not to ban guns.
Take your political agenda somewhere else.
This happening is just plain shameful and I wonder why no one has never noticed a psychopath hiding within that 24 year old kid.
Captcha: nip and tuck
Indeed.
Fuck off to all people in this thread who are arguing not to ban guns.
Take your political agenda somewhere else.
This happening is just plain shameful and I wonder why no one has never noticed a psychopath hiding within that 24 year old kid.
Captcha: nip and tuck
Indeed.
It'll be somewhat peculiar to watch this movie now. Despite analogies between this and the series are just superficial, they just come to mind by themselves...
Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people. Ban the ammunition!
A better argument against gun control is one that looks for alternative solutions to violent crime. Denying the effectiveness of gun control only re-raises the issue of violent crime to which people will unfortunately advocate gun control again. If we lived in a more loving society, this guy might have had a better chance of finding himself instead of failing to endure what must have been an agonizing mental state for who knows how long.
I guess my other point is that I feel that it's necessary to sympathize with both the victims and James Holmes. Any of us would likely act as drastically under similar circumstances to James's. Evil people don't end their lives so violently. Evil people would be too afraid. He was desperate.
I guess my other point is that I feel that it's necessary to sympathize with both the victims and James Holmes. Any of us would likely act as drastically under similar circumstances to James's. Evil people don't end their lives so violently. Evil people would be too afraid. He was desperate.
You know what pisses me off? I heard that when the police took him into custody, he told them: "I'm the Joker." This was on a radio report detailing it (we listened to the news all day at work today), so I'm pretty sure it's true. This, more than anything else sickens me. Because he didn't even have a reason.The Human Torch said:
Also, unless they have said more, it seems that he has a cleaner police record than me. By which I mean, he had one speeding ticket versus my [considerably more] speeding tickets. And that was it. I'm not really sure that this guy was mentally ill. Not anymore than a person has to be ill to commit such an act.
The bottom line is this. This was a tragedy. The actions of one man killed at least 12 people and left 57 more wounded. He deserves whatever punishment they give him and so much more, but it will never bring back the people that died. Including a young child (and probably some teens, too, honestly). I say we condemn the man and his actions, and put everything else aside for now.
This is a scary event, because I literally live right up the street from the Century 16 theatre that this massacre took place in. My mom and brother went to see MiB3 shortly after it came out. This is just so sad, for the victims, for Warner Bros, for Century 16, and shame on those that defend James' actions or use this event to further their opinions on this whole gun control bullshit.
People would still find ways to kill each other but imagine if he tried to kill all these people in the cinema with a few knives or swords. Many more people would have escaped and it would have been much easier for someone to stop him.Tony said:
Americans love their guns too much though, gun control will never work over there, im just glad I live in the UK.
The kid is a sociopath, because it takes a special kind of person to kill that many people for no reason. Soldiers kill people, but the vast majority of them don't want to, and only do so because they are told they are killing the enemy.Saltyk said:
His brain is probably chemically imbalanced, missing that ever so crucial voice in your head that says that you shouldn't kill someone.
So yes, he is a sociopath and a psychopath, but he just took Heath Ledger's Joker and turned it into an excuse. If, for some reason, he never saw the Batman movies or the movies were never made, he would found some other fictional character to relate to.
Yes, you are absolutely right with that. But I also think it's undisputable that the more guns people have, the more of these crimes are going to end in injury and death. Pointing and pulling a trigger simply is the easiest way to kill a person.Dastardly said:
That is pure speculation. I stand by my statement that guns are the easiest, most straightforward way to kill people. You don't have to get the ingredients and parts and hide in a basement, tinkering, as with explosives. You also don't have to approach your victim and apply physical force like with knifes. There are alot of mental and physical hurdles to kill somebody in an "old fashioned way". Guns are an invention designed to make killing as easy as possible. The more readily guns are available, the more people will use them. Good and bad guys.iblis666 said:
"You don't have to get the ingredients and parts and hide in a basement, tinkering, as with explosives"
But of course, this killer did all those things as well as collecting guns, because he is a bomber as well as a shooter.
If we are focusing on the kill count, rather than of the visceral unpleasantness of a gun massacre, we are far luckier that this guy (who apparently had some skill as a bomb maker) decided to go on a shooting spree rather than bombing the theater. The Oklahoma City bombing will stand as a much more successful massacre than this, because Timothy McVeigh did a good job on his bomb and managed to kill 168 people. Of course, 9/11 was an even worse massacre (nearly 3,000), and all that really required was knowing about the capability of aircraft and the psychology of those in charge of them. (Note: I believe 9/11 happened more or less the way the mainstream press said it did.)
Of course, as a typical spree killer, this guy probably wanted the visceral thrill of gunning people down himself rather than the somewhat less "up close and personal" method of detonating a bomb. We actually know quite a bit about spree killers. People talk about Bane and the Joker, but the film villain this guy really reminds me of? It's the antagonist of the 1968 Peter Bogdonovich film Targets [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targets], which also featured a massacre in a movie theater by a typical type of spree killer. The character in that film, of course, was based on real life spree killers like Charles Whitman. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman]
Incidentally, everything this guy did from his choice of movie, to his method of attack to his "I'm the Joker" statement was designed to generate publicity. His main goal, I'd say, was to get famous. I'd say it was more important to him than a simple numbers game of getting a high body count. So, in general, all the focus on this attack, doing things like cancelling the Paris premiere, is all feeding this guy's ego. (Not that it matters, he's already in custody and will soon become the next Jared Lee Loughner. Remember him? Meybe you do, but you probably haven't thought of him much since his Arizona killing spree faded from national memory.)
But of course, this killer did all those things as well as collecting guns, because he is a bomber as well as a shooter.
If we are focusing on the kill count, rather than of the visceral unpleasantness of a gun massacre, we are far luckier that this guy (who apparently had some skill as a bomb maker) decided to go on a shooting spree rather than bombing the theater. The Oklahoma City bombing will stand as a much more successful massacre than this, because Timothy McVeigh did a good job on his bomb and managed to kill 168 people. Of course, 9/11 was an even worse massacre (nearly 3,000), and all that really required was knowing about the capability of aircraft and the psychology of those in charge of them. (Note: I believe 9/11 happened more or less the way the mainstream press said it did.)
Of course, as a typical spree killer, this guy probably wanted the visceral thrill of gunning people down himself rather than the somewhat less "up close and personal" method of detonating a bomb. We actually know quite a bit about spree killers. People talk about Bane and the Joker, but the film villain this guy really reminds me of? It's the antagonist of the 1968 Peter Bogdonovich film Targets [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targets], which also featured a massacre in a movie theater by a typical type of spree killer. The character in that film, of course, was based on real life spree killers like Charles Whitman. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman]
Incidentally, everything this guy did from his choice of movie, to his method of attack to his "I'm the Joker" statement was designed to generate publicity. His main goal, I'd say, was to get famous. I'd say it was more important to him than a simple numbers game of getting a high body count. So, in general, all the focus on this attack, doing things like cancelling the Paris premiere, is all feeding this guy's ego. (Not that it matters, he's already in custody and will soon become the next Jared Lee Loughner. Remember him? Meybe you do, but you probably haven't thought of him much since his Arizona killing spree faded from national memory.)
You have no disagreement from me. I don't blame Batman, the Joker, or Christopher Nolan for this. I blame the person who pulled the trigger. He is the one responsible for it.The Human Torch said:
I agree that there is something wrong with the kid, but I don't want to say that he is mentally insane or anything (no more than you have to be to willingly kill a person). By doing so, a lot of people seem to take the responsibility for the person's actions off that person. And then they start saying how we should be taking better care of such people and society has all these responsibilities for them. Suddenly, it's OUR fault that we allowed it to happen. Either because we "failed him", or we don't ban guns, or our "culture is sick and violent", or some other equally inane concept or combination thereof. No, he is responsible, and only him. You can't police everyone and you shouldn't try.