Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

10 shot dead at Batman showing in Denver

Options
1…1516182021…49

Comments

  • Options
    #512
    Stercus Accidit
    Registered Users Posts: 8,758 ✭✭✭Stercus Accidit


    ScumLord wrote: »
    clearly more guns are the solution. A shootout involving many people rather than judt one person can't end up killing more people.

    Well, yes, two people shooting at each other would cause less than 50 casualties.


  • Options
    #513
    Bacchus
    Registered Users Posts: 4,699 ✭✭✭Bacchus


    First off, condolences to to the families of the victims and the people of Denver. It's a awful tragedy.

    On the topic of "why" the shooter choose to attack a cinema, would it be outside the realm of possibility that this person was a Marvel fanboy and didn't want Batman to topple The Avengers as the comic blockbuster of the year and therefore did this in an attempt to damage ticket sales? All this of course added to the fact that he is seriously disturbed. You always see online wars on discussion boards/movie sites between Marvel and DC fans. Apply that fandom to someone with a gun and some serious problems and you get this.... Just a thought. Cos, I can't see any other 'reason' to attack the premiere of a Batman movie over any other target. It's just too random.


  • Options
    #514
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,611 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ScumLord wrote: »
    clearly more guns are the solution. A shootout involving many people rather than judt one person can't end up killing more people.

    In states and localities where private businesses choose whether guns are allowed on premises or not which do you think would be targetted more? There's plenty of cases of people taking out shooters that barely make the news because they were possible tragedies prevented.


  • Options
    #515
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    Have the NRA released a statement yet, I wonder?


  • Options
    #516
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,611 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Bacchus wrote: »
    First off, condolences to to the families of the victims and the people of Denver. It's a awful tragedy.

    On the topic of "why" the shooter choose to attack a cinema, would it be outside the realm of possibility that this person was a Marvel fanboy and didn't want Batman to topple The Avengers as the comic blockbuster of the year and therefore did this in an attempt to damage ticket sales? All this of course added to the fact that he is seriously disturbed. You always see online wars on discussion boards/movie sites between Marvel and DC fans. Apply that fandom to someone with a gun and some serious problems and you get this.... Just a thought. Cos, I can't see any other 'reason' to attack the premiere of a Batman movie over any other target. It's just too random.

    He might've been trying to "emulate" something either.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #517
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,611 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    old hippy wrote: »
    Have the NRA released a statement yet, I wonder?

    That crowd generally do themselves no favours so true to form I'd guess they'll release something soon :pac:


  • Options
    #518
    scdublin
    Registered Users Posts: 643 ✭✭✭scdublin


    Really does make you wonder what goes wrong in peoples heads that they do this kind of stuff...


  • Options
    #519
    Wompa1
    Registered Users Posts: 8,168 ✭✭✭Wompa1


    mike65 wrote: »
    There is little to say about these acts of violence to be honest. Except maybe WHAT THE FVCK IS WRONG WITH THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

    Why just America? There was a bombing in Bulgaria a couple of days ago. It's not too long ago that that guy was holed up in France. Some guy threw a grenade from the top of a building in Belgium and multiple people were stabbed at music festivals in Ireland and the UK in the last 2 weeks.


  • Options
    #520
    Mickeroo
    Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,170 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    Stercus Accidit wrote: »
    Well, yes, two people shooting at each other would cause less than 50 casualties.

    sure in a pistols at dawn type scenario maybe. 2 people shooting (neither of which are trained marksmen) at each other across a dark smoky cinema full of terrified civilians running for their lives? come on....


  • Options
    #521
    mathie
    Registered Users Posts: 5,099 ✭✭✭mathie


    whiplashed wrote: »
    They described the scene in the movie on CNN that was on when this happened and I think it was very deliberate to choose that moment so as to confuse people and make them just believe the gunfire coming from the movie. Some may think I am over-reacting, but I think all countries worldwide should stop screening the movie for a few weeks or so as a mark of respect.

    Not according to reports on BBC ...
    1532: William Washington, a Denver radio host who was in the cinema at the time of the shooting, said it was only a few minutes into the movie when it all happened. He said: "Anne Hathaway's character was in a meeting and all of a sudden there were lots of gun shots in the scene. But then they became very realistic, so much so my ears started to hurt."

    1534: William Washington continued: "Someone then shouted at us not to go into the lobby as the gunman was in there. They just shouted, 'he has a gun!' People were there with bloody faces. We were so confused as to what was happening. You could taste and feel some kind of gas in the air."


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #522
    NovabooM
    Registered Users Posts: 7 ✭NovabooM


    crazygeryy wrote: »
    old hippy wrote: »
    crazygeryy wrote: »
    What the **** was a 3 month old baby doing at a 1230 am showing of batman.crazy ass americans.

    I don't care much for people bringing their kids or infants to the pub but it doesn't make them crazy. Or American.

    Your right,i said that with a large helping of sarcasm.but bringing a 3 month old into a movie is mad.

    Bringing a 3 month old to a late cinema may be mad in your eyes, But I find it just as MAD to bring a gun to a cinema and maim and murder innocent people.

    The facts of who was there and their reasons for being there haven't been fully established, what is for definite is there has been a horrific incident and people have died.

    Maybe save your foul language for the perpetrator of this crime and not the victims!!!


  • Options
    #523
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    All this talk about the NRA and guns is diverting attention away from the real issue here, who brings a 3 month old to the cinema? :rolleyes:

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #524
    mathie
    Registered Users Posts: 5,099 ✭✭✭mathie


    K-9 wrote: »
    All this talk about the NRA and guns is diverting attention away from the real issue here, who brings a 3 month old to the cinema? :rolleyes:

    The real issue in a mass-murder is who brings a 3 month old to the cinema?


  • Options
    #525
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    scdublin wrote: »
    Really does make you wonder what goes wrong in peoples heads that they do this kind of stuff...


    Bullying. At some stage in his life the perp will have suffered from some kind of bullying and as a result he will have become more detached from real life and unable to articulate, this is the result.

    My guess. Everything is of course speculation, gossip and internet chat at this stage. The serious analysis (I hope) comes later and we learn something about society and ourselves. Or we don't.


  • Options
    #526
    CodyJarrett
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 307 ✭✭CodyJarrett


    mathie wrote: »
    Not according to reports on BBC ...

    1532: William Washington, a Denver radio host who was in the cinema at the time of the shooting, said it was only a few minutes into the movie when it all happened. He said: "Anne Hathaway's character was in a meeting and all of a sudden there were lots of gun shots in the scene. But then they became very realistic, so much so my ears started to hurt."

    Eh, what? Sure the BBC report confirms what I said: that there was shooting on screen at the same moment that the real shooting took place.


  • Options
    #527
    Dunny
    Registered Users Posts: 2,985 ✭✭✭Dunny


    Obama on now.


  • Options
    #528
    omgitsthelazor
    Registered Users Posts: 186 ✭✭omgitsthelazor


    old hippy wrote: »
    Bullying. At some stage in his life the perp will have suffered from some kind of bullying and as a result he will have become more detached from real life and unable to articulate, this is the result.

    My guess. Everything is of course speculation, gossip and internet chat at this stage. The serious analysis (I hope) comes later and we learn something about society and ourselves. Or we don't.

    Most likely, popularity is everything in American culture so when somebody is made feel like an outcast as a child they harbor feelings of resentment to society. When they're at an age where they have the means to "get back" it doesn't take much to trigger them to do it.
    Its scary looking at homicide rates in the US, you're literally 5 times more likely to murdered over there than here. Even countries like Cuba are safer. Many will blame gun law but countries like Finland allow civilians to have firearms and don't run into these problems, it's clearly a cultural thing in the states.


  • Options
    #529
    meoklmrk91
    Registered Users Posts: 4,085 ✭✭✭meoklmrk91


    Police Chief just gave a statement, the suspects apartment is Boobytrapped, he said it was very sophisticated in how it was set up, several agencies are involved in how to safely get into the apartment and disarm the explosive devices. They don't know how long it will take but they may consider detonating.


  • Options
    #530
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,611 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    mathie wrote: »
    Not according to reports on BBC ...
    1532: William Washington, a Denver radio host who was in the cinema at the time of the shooting, said it was only a few minutes into the movie when it all happened. He said: "Anne Hathaway's character was in a meeting and all of a sudden there were lots of gun shots in the scene. But then they became very realistic, so much so my ears started to hurt."

    I'm not trying to be facetious but seriously, spoilers.


  • Options
    #531
    mathie
    Registered Users Posts: 5,099 ✭✭✭mathie


    whiplashed wrote: »
    Eh, what? Sure the BBC report confirms what I said: that there was shooting on screen at the same moment that the real shooting took place.

    My bad. Apologies.
    I read that as the shots were in the cinema and it was a quiet scene on film.
    If the killer timed it to that perfection then its beyond chilling.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #532
    scdublin
    Registered Users Posts: 643 ✭✭✭scdublin


    Definitely could have started with bullying. Kids get bullied worldwide though and it never seems to occur as much as in the states....maybe it's because of the huge population there, that statistically it's more likely to occur?


  • Options
    #533
    Bacchus
    Registered Users Posts: 4,699 ✭✭✭Bacchus


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I'm not trying to be facetious but seriously, spoilers.

    Mod said near start of thread that movie spoilers in here would result in a ban. Fair enough I think though that particular spoiler is probably a bit OTT.


  • Options
    #534
    stevenmu
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,689 Mod ✭✭✭✭stevenmu


    Huffington Post article on James Holmes: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/colorado-shooting-james-holmes_n_1688996.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003


  • Options
    #535
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Deleted User wrote: »
    If anyone wants to start about gun-control answer me this; if there'd been a few dozen of the cinema-goers armed would the scumbag have killed and injured as many people?.
    When you open fire with an automatic weapon on a tightly gathered crowd in a confined space, then you are going to cause multiple injuries and fatalities in a matter of seconds. Nobody would have had time to react.

    Even if most people were carrying guns, their first instinct is to drop and hide and escape. Very few people without training would have the presence of mind or the balls to take their weapon out and try to return fire.
    Anyone who did would likely be very panicky and confused and would shoot multiple targets - i.e. anything that moved and anything that appears to be carrying a gun.

    A single trained person with a pistol would be a lot more effective than an entire room full of unprepared civilians carrying Uzis.

    If a few dozen of the cinema goers were carrying weapons, most likely a lot more people would be dead and the police would be trying to deal with multiple shooters on the run as people panic when they realise that they've shot and killed other innocent people.


  • Options
    #536
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    Dunny! wrote: »
    Obama on now.

    Elegant and composed as ever but sad to hear all the god stuff.


  • Options
    #537
    Stercus Accidit
    Registered Users Posts: 8,758 ✭✭✭Stercus Accidit


    Mickeroo wrote: »
    sure in a pistols at dawn type scenario maybe. 2 people shooting (neither of which are trained marksmen) at each other across a dark smoky cinema full of terrified civilians running for their lives? come on....

    And you are telling me the above scenario would be worse than what happened, complete unopposed shooting into the crowd and 50 people shot? Any kind of resistance would have reduced the number of casualties, and glib sarcastic replies don't change that.


  • Options
    #538
    mathie
    Registered Users Posts: 5,099 ✭✭✭mathie


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I'm not trying to be facetious but seriously, spoilers.

    Sorry. Point taken.
    Edited original post.


  • Options
    #539
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,611 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    scdublin wrote: »
    Definitely could have started with bullying. Kids get bullied worldwide though and it never seems to occur as much as in the states....maybe it's because of the huge population there, that statistically it's more likely to occur?
    300 million people there'll always be outliers.


  • Options
    #540
    Renn
    Registered Users Posts: 3,255 ✭✭✭Renn




  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #541
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,611 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    seamus wrote: »
    When you open fire with an automatic weapon on a tightly gathered crowd in a confined space, then you are going to cause multiple injuries and fatalities in a matter of seconds. Nobody would have had time to react.

    Even if most people were carrying guns, their first instinct is to drop and hide and escape. Very few people without training would have the presence of mind or the balls to take their weapon out and try to return fire.
    Anyone who did would likely be very panicky and confused and would shoot multiple targets - i.e. anything that moved and anything that appears to be carrying a gun.

    A single trained person with a pistol would be a lot more effective than an entire room full of unprepared civilians carrying Uzis.

    If a few dozen of the cinema goers were carrying weapons, most likely a lot more people would be dead and the police would be trying to deal with multiple shooters on the run as people panic when they realise that they've shot and killed other innocent people.

    A fairly high proportion of those who would carry handguns would be well trained to use them.


Advertisement