10 shot dead at Batman showing in Denver

Duggys Housemate · 20-07-2012 10:13PM

old hippy wrote: »

A premier for a Batman movie? I imagine there were lots of ordinary fans there, dressed up...

He would be packing a lot of heat for Batman.

old hippy · 20-07-2012 10:13PM

Jesus Shaves wrote: »

Most people who are muslim don't have bombs in their shoes

I dont blame these things entirely but they do trigger something in the minds of the insane

Insane people do insane things. Something will always trigger them.

MadsL · 20-07-2012 10:13PM

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Indeed, although a different jurisdiction to the one most of us are posting from. That said, Northern Ireland was in fact less violent than, say, Oakland, during the troubles.

Wanna try a source for that?

omgitsthelazor · 20-07-2012 10:14PM

MadsL wrote: »

Source?

It's an incorrect stat, you're actually 5 times more likely in the US. The homicidal rate is 5 times higher over there, the violent assault rate among youths 12 times higher.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=countries+by+homicide+rate

mike65 · 20-07-2012 10:15PM

Pretty damning to have some here suggesting having more guns is the solution to armed nutters.

Not drawing a distinction between ideologues/political murder and random crazies is also dubious thinking.

Nodin · 20-07-2012 10:16PM

Jesus Shaves wrote: »

Most people who are muslim don't have bombs in their shoes

I dont blame these things entirely but they do trigger something in the minds of the insane

Yep. Jack the Ripper and Albert Fish's Xtravision account shows multiple hirings of Evil Dead II.

Witcher · 20-07-2012 10:17PM

mike65 wrote: »

Pretty damning to have some here suggesting having more guns is the solution to armed nutters.

It makes sense in some ways, if there are guns out there and people willing to use them for the wrong reasons then why should person A not have one to protect themselves?

You can't remove the guns from the equation so all you can do is level the playing field in a sense.

BarackPyjama · 20-07-2012 10:17PM

Please provide a source to prove that this happens in the USA more than any other country. Or else use your observational skills along with common sense.

Seriously. Some people are idiots.

old hippy · 20-07-2012 10:18PM

Blay wrote: »

It makes sense in some ways, if there are guns out there and people willing to use them for the wrong reasons then why should person A not have one to protect themselves?

Because then you get an armed populace which increases fear and retaliation and innocent bystanders. No thanks.

abouttobebanned · 20-07-2012 10:19PM

Red Hand wrote: »

He can edit it so that it is readable. I don't think many people are going to read a block of text no matter what the subject.

The original was devoid of paragraphs too. I was just trying to provide people with quick access to it if they didn't already have it. apologies.

Daemos · 20-07-2012 10:19PM

It's a sad state of affairs that when I heard 'mass shooting in America', my first thought was 'oh, again?'

What a sad end to what should have been a great day for everyone there

RIP

Witcher · 20-07-2012 10:19PM

old hippy wrote: »

Because then you get an armed populace which increases fear and retaliation and innocent bystanders. No thanks.

So the populace in a country like the US with a high rate of firearms ownership and people willing to use them on others should be unarmed and vulnerable to events such as this? Makes sense.

mike65 · 20-07-2012 10:20PM

Blay wrote: »

It makes sense in some ways, if there are guns out there and people willing to use them for the wrong reasons then why should person A not have one to protect themselves?

I think its been shown that those who own guns are more likely to get shot as they pose a threat that they otherwise wouldn't.

Also suggesting that a gun battle in a dark enclosed area is the best way to stop a gun toting killer behind a plume of smoke is retarded - instead of 12 dead there would probably be twice that.

old hippy · 20-07-2012 10:22PM

Blay wrote: »

So the populace in a country like the US with a high rate of firearms ownership and people willing to use them on others should be unarmed and vulnerable to events such as this? Makes sense.

Why stop there, they need armed militias and gated communities, too. Just to make sure.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer · 20-07-2012 10:22PM

Not sure if its been posted, but its highly relevant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4

Jesus Shaves · 20-07-2012 10:22PM

Nodin wrote: »

Yep. Jack the Ripper and Albert Fish's Xtravision account shows multiple hirings of Evil Dead II.

link?

MadsL · 20-07-2012 10:22PM

omgitsthelazor wrote: »

It's an incorrect stat, you're actually 5 times more likely in the US. The homicidal rate is 5 times higher over there, the violent assault rate among youths 12 times higher.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=countries+by+homicide+rate

Nonsense -

USA 4.7 per 100,000
Europe 3.5 per 100,000

From your link!!

http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/Homicide/Globa_study_on_homicide_2011_web.pdf

Estonia has a worse homicide rate than the US

previous user · 20-07-2012 10:22PM

danniemcq wrote: »

oh aye, sure look at Canada. Way to polite to spoil movies but just as many guns and nowhere near as many deaths!

I always thought Canada was a heck of a lot safer than America, what the hell is goin on with people?

Witcher · 20-07-2012 10:24PM

old hippy wrote: »

Why stop there, they need armed militias and gated communities, too. Just to make sure.

:rolleyes: Right, discussion over.

No matter what we think people still carry firearms in the US for their protection be it right or wrong.

Manic Moran · 20-07-2012 10:25PM

old hippy wrote: »

Because then you get an armed populace which increases fear and retaliation and innocent bystanders. No thanks.

It is interesting to make a comparison between States which, for example, have few prohibitions on an armed populace (eg Vermont all but allows you to carry pretty much any gun, anywhere, any time without a license) to States which have far stricter controls, such as California where I, an Army officer with a great security clearance, am not permitted to carry anything bigger than a Swiss Army knife.

Every time there is a move by a State to make it easier for people to carry firearms, there are those who bring up a parade of horribles, blood flowing on the streets, etc, yet it has never happened, and we have about 20 years of data to draw upon now.

The bottom line is that allowing people to be armed on a daily basis does not make the violent crime rate worse, and usually doesn't make the violent crime rate better. It does, however, have a direct effect on the vulnerability of the individuals who choose to be armed.

I think its been shown that those who own guns are more likely to get shot as they pose a threat that they otherwise wouldn't.

So what? It's my choice to bring a gun, it's my choice to produce it. If I'm using as firearm, it's because I -already- think life is at risk, so from my perspective I'm certainly no worse off because of it. At least it's a variable under my own control, and the 'threat I pose that I otherwise wouldn't' could prove quite viable.

old hippy · 20-07-2012 10:36PM

Blay wrote: »

:rolleyes: Right, discussion over.

No matter what we think people still carry firearms in the US for their protection be it right or wrong.

And when everyone is tooled up, a utopian age of peace and goodwill follows?

MadsL · 20-07-2012 10:39PM

old hippy wrote: »

And when everyone is tooled up, a utopian age of peace and goodwill follows?

Nah, have to legalise pot as well to make that happen.

Manic Moran · 20-07-2012 10:39PM

And when everyone is tooled up, a utopian age of peace and goodwill follows?

An armed society is a polite society is a phrase which probably came about for a reason

However, since we know we're not in a utopian age of peace and goodwill right now, I don't see how giving individuals a fighting chance (literally) against what we can consider the forces of evil is a bad thing.

old hippy · 20-07-2012 10:42PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

An armed society is a polite society is a phrase which probably came about for a reason

However, since we know we're not in a utopian age of peace and goodwill right now, I don't see how giving individuals a fighting chance (literally) against what we can consider the forces of evil is a bad thing.

Well, I don't believe in "evil" but I don't reckon having everyone tooled up is the answer, either. That massacre would have resulted in a helluva lot more casualties had everyone been armed.

Da Shins Kelly · 20-07-2012 10:44PM

When I think of how excited everyone was in the theater I was in last night and then think about all those poor people all feeling the same excitement as us and then getting cut down like that...it just makes me really sad.

Suryavarman · 20-07-2012 10:45PM

Interesting article from the Huffington Post today related to the shooting. Although mass shootings are more common in America lately, single victim shootings are down.

Article:

Single-victim gun killings have dropped more than 40 percent since 1980, according to 2010 FBI crime data. But the total number of people dying in attacks that claimed four or more victims has climbed from an average of 161 a year in the 1980s to 163 between 2006 and 2008, according to FBI statistics.

Duggys Housemate · 20-07-2012 10:45PM

MadsL wrote: »

Wanna try a source for that?

Era, you could do this stuff yourself.

in 2011 there were 103 homicides in Oakland. Oakland has a population of about 400,000. Northern Ireland has a population of about 1.8 M, and that ratio has about been the same for the last 40 years i.e. about 4.5 to 1. The number of killings in Norn Ireland would have had to be therefore, about 450 per year to match the Oakland per capita rate.

Which maybe it was for one of those years. Not all. If Norn Iron had a killing rate of 450 per year, it would be 13,500 over the 30 years of the troubles, and you listed about a 1000-2000.

Suryavarman · 20-07-2012 10:46PM

old hippy wrote: »

Well, I don't believe in "evil" but I don't reckon having everyone tooled up is the answer, either. That massacre would have resulted in a helluva lot more casualties had everyone been armed.

You don't know that. For all we know, if one or two people had their guns we might only have 2 or 3 dead along with the gunman.

Duggys Housemate · 20-07-2012 10:49PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

You don't know that. For all we know, if one or two people had their guns we might only have 2 or 3 dead along with the gunman.

Or 300 as everybody starts shooting.

MadsL · 20-07-2012 10:56PM

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Era, you could do this stuff yourself.

in 2011 there were 103 homicides in Oakland. Oakland has a population of about 400,000. Northern Ireland has a population of about 1.8 M, and that ratio has about been the same for the last 40 years i.e. about 4.5 to 1. The number of killings in Norn Ireland would have had to be therefore, about 450 per year to match the Oakland per capita rate.

Which maybe it was for one of those years. Not all. If Norn Iron had a killing rate of 450 per year, it would be 13,500 over the 30 years of the troubles, and you listed about a 1000-2000.

I listed direct numbers of deaths linked to paramilitary activity in the 70s. You are comparing that to Oakland(!) in 2011?

The point I'm making is that paramilitary activity in NI and RoI killed far more than the nutjobs that some people on this forum are using to tar all Americans with the same brush. Typical thoughtless knee-jerk reactions without thinking about the needless deaths in Ireland and the UK. That's my point.

10 shot dead at Batman showing in Denver

Comments