10 shot dead at Batman showing in Denver

kegzmc · 23-07-2012 11:17pm

Holy smoke!

When did this happen?

Tony EH · 23-07-2012 11:18pm

MadsL wrote: »

Do go away to CT there's a good chap. Remember to take your meds too.

For once, you and I are in full agreement on this thread.

Run_to_da_hills · 24-07-2012 12:05am

MadsL wrote: »

Do go away to CT there's a good chap. Remember to take your meds too.

You telling me that this guy is not doped up :rolleyes:

Keep on watching your FOX news.

http://i50.tinypic.com/powf7.jpg

MadsL · 24-07-2012 12:17am

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

...

You'll have to speak up, I have you on ignore.

UserName 217 · 24-07-2012 12:33am

I think he tried to join a private gun club weeks ago, but was disapproved.

What do you take from that?

Practice on his aiming and still carry out the massacre

or

Feed his want to shoot guns etc. (without the massacre).

Why would he been disapproved?

What are the conditions to be approved?

MadsL · 24-07-2012 12:45am

UserName 217 wrote: »

What are the conditions to be approved?

If it's a private range then if the owner/manager doesn't like the cut of your jib then you are out. You would have to go to court to dispute it.

Some clubs only allow citizens, others need to be vouched.

CodyJarrett · 24-07-2012 12:56am

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

You telling me that this guy is not doped up[/URL] :rolleyes:

Doesn't look "doped up" to me.

He looks like a fruit cake that hasn't slept too well and the reality of the situation he is in is starting to hit him.

Reindeer · 24-07-2012 12:59am

yammycat wrote: »

How many people have been killed by humans in your area and how many by wolves, and then tell me why wolves are one of the main reasons you carry a firearm, quoting wolves as a reason for carrying firearms is about as sensible as quoting lightning, if you said I carry a firearm because there are a lot of assholes out there that would be fine, but wolves ? that's lol ridiculous

I hate to derail the thread, but I guess my first sentence, and general message is pertinent.

Don't get me wrong, I do have my concerns about the people in the area, and I have run across drug dealers hiding out in the woods, and mushroom hoarders.

Fortunately, you rarely run in to wolves in the lower 48 doing timber cruise. There's less than 800 known wolves in the PNW, 1,200-1,500 estimated. But I do cruise Alaska, Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana as well, and the population in that area is supposedly near 15,000. The last time I saw wolves was in Idaho. I was terrified. It was getting near dark and I was alone and 2-3 miles from my truck. Most of the wolves in the lower 48 are around Yellowstone(Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana areas). Washington state, where I do the most of my work, has roughly 10 wolf packs.

There are an estimated 50,000 Mountain Lions in the US. They range to everywhere west of the Mississippi, including towns and cities on occasion. Oregon and Washington supposedly are home to 10,000 of them.

Yer gonna love this - the total Bear population in the US is estimated to be nearly half a million, with 32,000 Grizzly and Kodiaks resident in the US, mostly in Alaska.

When you do the work I do, you WILL run in to bears, and often. I see several every year I do this work. Most will let you pass within a safe distance. Some will be curious, others will be defensive(or offensive). Just stand still, do not run, do not roll up into a stupid ball. NO amount of playing dead will convince a bear you are dead(and as the zoologist will tell you, Bears are often scavengers as most omnivoures are), and it certainly will not convince a bear that you have left their territory. Stand your ground, preferably with a large firearm, and do not make any movements or noises unless you are going to fire a warning shot. The shouting you hear done often on youtube vids can be construed as a challenge. Only the large numbers of humans is what chases most of those bears off. A bear can run up to 30 mph on flat ground. Pray it is a black bear that finds you(450,000 or so of them in the US are). They are 'tame' as bears go. Grizzlies and Kodiaks have earned their reputation, though.

I've also been close to a tree that was hit by lightning not too long ago during a freak storm we had.

You will mostly run in to bears. Cougars, unless young and inexperienced, generally don't want to mess with something their own size. Still, do not make yourself an easy target by staying in an area too long, hunkering down or laying down, or passing under forest structures where they can pounce from. And, if you feel like something is watching you, there likely is.

Where I run in to predators, they are largely well outside of civilization. Some do not know how to be afraid of people yet, especially the young ones. The curiosity alone will bring them towards you, especially bears. Bears are basically fearless and have no predators save man. So bears not exposed to people are often extremely curious indeed. Add in you being in their territory and they want to make sure you know you are in their back yard. They also seem to always be in a bad mood when they have company, which I find odd being as they can basically go up to a pack of wolves or a Cougar and tell them to make them a sandwich.

As for liking my job, or wanting it, it is only really part time work at best. I am currently awaiting my next contract in southern Washington to start. I just completed one near Tacoma area. Though I love being out in nature, and the views are stunning, and the smells amazing. It is hard work, the bugs are a huge pain sometimes, and it's not like you are walking in a park. The forest often fights you every inch of the way when you can not find a deer trail heading your way. Even then, deer trails often go under huge logs, through blackberry(a large, heavily thorned bush), etc. It mostly looks like this: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2614/3857475082_a3ed903f43.jpg

The bulk of my work is measuring the height, volume, and health of trees in the PNW.

MadsL · 24-07-2012 1:15am

I think a lot of posters don't really appreciate the "raw in tooth and claw" aspect of US wildlife.

I was at a music festival a couple of months ago, some guys in VIP shot this footage. A black bear admittedly, but would have been a shock to put your head out of a tent to meet this guy.

edit: I also believe a number of people have been killed walking in the woods discovering weed plantations.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/04/local/la-me-fort-bragg-20110904

Reindeer · 24-07-2012 1:16am

MadsL wrote: »

Try not to shoot the coyotes old chap, we have learned to live with them and they do a good job of keeping down the bunnies in my backyard. However if a pack did get aggressive Kirby wants me to trap them

In another life, I used to hunt varmint on a friend's ranch/farm in New Mexico and Texas. They had serious varmint problems, and did not want to have to lay down poison. I have had the opportunity to shoot at coyotes hundreds of times. Know that back then, I could easily hit a 10" tall Prarie Dog(a large rodent) at 300 yards with the rifle I usually carried when I tell you this. Every time I shot at a coyote, every single time, I clearly missed, and not by any small margin. A coyote is the size of a small dog. I took this as a message, and I am not even that particularly spiritual. I have never shot a coyote, and as a dog lover, I tend to think that's just fine.

MadsL · 24-07-2012 1:23am

Reindeer wrote: »

In another life, I used to hunt varmint on a friend's ranch/farm in New Mexico and Texas. They had serious varmint problems, and did not want to have to law down poison. I have had the opportunity to shoot at coyotes hundreds of times. Know that back then, I could easily hit a 10" tall Prarie Dog(a large rodent) at 300 yards with the rifle I usually carried when I tell you this. Every time I shot at a coyote, every single time, I clearly missed, and not by any small margin. A coyote is the size of a small dog. I took this as a message, and I am not even that particularly spiritual. I have never shot a coyote, and as a dog lover, I tend to think that's just fine.

OT Sorry.

Yeah - my locality has really changed attitudes around here. If you shot coyotes on sight without good reason you would be ostracised as, basically, a dickhead.

MaroonAndGreen · 24-07-2012 2:05am

supposedly he shot everyone leaving through emergency exits?

Manic Moran · 24-07-2012 2:55am

Tony EH wrote: »

I have already offered some points on what can be done to tighten up the current situation, which in all honesty is quite ridiculous.

And those points have a couple of practical problems in the implementation, the solutions to which I would be curious to hear from you.

NTM

Tony EH · 24-07-2012 3:29am

Bollocks.

You aren't the slightest bit interested an any solutions. Your previous posts have shown that quite clearly.

You don't care about kids getting blown away, so long as your toys are safe, otherwise you wouldn't be objecting to a tightening in the availability of weapons to just anyone.

Canis Lupus · 24-07-2012 3:51am

Tony EH wrote: »

Bollocks.

You aren't the slightest bit interested an any solutions. Your previous posts have shown that quite clearly.

You don't care about kids getting blown away, so long as your toys are safe, otherwise you wouldn't be objecting to a tightening in the availability of weapons to just anyone.

To be fair he responded to your post a while back with fair criticisms and a request for how you'd resolve the issues he raised. Your response was to say you simply didn't bother reading what he had to say.

Whilst your "won't someone please think of the children" stance is admirable there are real impracticalities to be overcome in an attempt to tighten gun laws. I personally would be interested in you looking at Manics response earlier and responding to it like an adult engaged in a debate

Tony EH · 24-07-2012 4:55am

To be quote honest, I have no interest.

There doesn't seem to be any real or transparent wish to engage in a debate about solutions or methods to curb this type of incident. Just flimsy excuse, obsfucation and Monty Python remarks.

That's no good.

I, in fact, would like to hear from the other side of the "gun control" debate, what THEY would do to stem this awful occurance.

Until then, it strikes me that they don't give a **** whether 9 year olds get killed at a Batman film, so long as their pop guns are available.

And your smart-arse

"won't someone please think of the children"

isn't needed.

there are real impracticalities to be overcome in an attempt to tighten gun laws

So what? Do nothing? Is that your answer?

Again...no good.

Canis Lupus · 24-07-2012 5:42am

Tony EH wrote: »

To be quote honest, I have no interest.

So you won't listen to them but they should listen to you?

There doesn't seem to be any real or transparent wish to engage in a debate about solutions or methods to curb this type of incident. Just flimsy excuse, obsfucation and Monty Python remarks.

No, some honest criticism. It's all very well to go about saying how we must do something but it's also necessary to recognise the very real difficulties in achieving those goals.

I, in fact, would like to hear from the other side of the "gun control" debate, what THEY would do to stem this awful occurance.

What can be done? To me the situation in America is that the horse has bolted already. I would imagine changes can be made but to suggest it's possible to stop someone from getting a gun and going on a shooting spree if they truly want to in the US is frankly naive.

Until then, it strikes me that they don't give a **** whether 9 year olds get killed at a Batman film, so long as their pop guns are available.

I sincerely doubt that.

And your smart-arse isn't needed.

Of course it is. You're being ridiculous.

Manic Moran · 24-07-2012 5:47am

Tony EH wrote: »

Bollocks.

You aren't the slightest bit interested an any solutions. Your previous posts have shown that quite clearly.

On the contrary, I'm just not interested in impractical solutions as they aren't, well, practical.

You don't care about kids getting blown away, so long as your toys are safe, otherwise you wouldn't be objecting to a tightening in the availability of weapons to just anyone.

I could take offence to that, as I'm rather fond of my daughter and would rather she lived (a) longer than me, and (b) long enough to raise my grandkids.

I, in fact, would like to hear from the other side of the "gun control" debate, what THEY would do to stem this awful occurance.

It can never be completely stemmed. I think there are some things which can be done which would be acceptable politically and practically, however.

For example, provide sufficient funding to make all the State criminal and mental IT systems work together so that NICS works like it is supposed to. The reason Cho bought his Glock, for example, was that the Virginia system wasn't talking to the Federal system.

Allow an access mechanism for private party sales to utilise NICS. Currently there is no system in place for it.

Should 'fill in some of the gaps', I think.

The popular opposition to banning firearms in the US cannot be overstated. Eleanor Kjellman was an elected member of the legislature in New Hampshire (State Motto: Live Free or Die, which ought to be a clue here) who dared to suggest about two years back that perhaps members of the public should not be permitted to wear sidearms to the State's legislature buildings. Not only did she not receive any support for her bill, but her own party (Democrats) refused to re-nominate her for re-election.

When the Supreme Court was considering the individual's right to firearms in Heller, the Montana Secretary of State sent a letter stating that if the Federal government's view was that there was no such right, then the State would consider seceding from the Union.
http://sos.mt.gov/News/archives/2008/February/2-19-08.htm

Any suggestions will have to take this level of opposition to drastic actions in mind.

NTM

MadsL · 24-07-2012 5:51am

Tony EH wrote: »

To be quote honest, I have no interest.

There doesn't seem to be any real or transparent wish to engage in a debate about solutions or methods to curb this type of incident. Just flimsy excuse, obsfucation and Monty Python remarks.

That's no good.

I, in fact, would like to hear from the other side of the "gun control" debate, what THEY would do to stem this awful occurance.

I believe I have already suggested the following in this thread

Test fires on file for every weapon for immediate weapon identification
Range refusals reported to law enforcement
Ending the stupid situation of allowing trained individuals access to weapons and then preventing them from carrying in public places like cinemas and sports stadiums where they could prevent tragedies like this.

Until then, it strikes me that they don't give a **** whether 9 year olds get killed at a Batman film, so long as their pop guns are available.

Unbelievable statement. Totally unwarranted.

Father Damo · 24-07-2012 6:25am

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The upcoming UN treaty on small arms being signed this Friday seems like the only motive I see behind this killing.

MadsL wrote: »

...and welcome to my ignore list.

Why? He is the funniest thing on this forum FFS :pac: I mean, if you cant get a laugh out of somebody claiming this is a staged government operation in spite of there being zero reason or motive for the government to stage it, seeing as the UN treaty does not impact US gun owners, I dont know like.

His own mother said upon hearing the news that she knew he did it. Who knows, maybe the family are all in the CIA and have been rasiing him for the last 24 years programmed to act when required.

PhlegmyMoses · 24-07-2012 6:30am

MadsL wrote: »

That's why we are discussing the US, try to keep up.

Cheers for that incredibly condescending post.

Irrespective of where I am from, it highlights the problem with the US. In Ireland, I will rarely find myself in a situation where I need to use "deadly force" because nobody has guns. The overwhelming majority of Americans will never find themselves in this situation either as I feel that " required the use of deadly force" is a phrase that is open to interpretation.

Sure, I may be mugged at knife point, but I don't really need a gun in this situation. I need to hand my money over and 99% of the time, that will be the end of it. Somebody may burgle my house while I'm there. Have my things, they are only things after all, as I have insurance and I value my health more than my flatscreen and a few pieces of gold and silver.

The dangerous animals argument is disingenuous and seems to be used as a means to muddy the water in such a debate. Sure, some people, like Reindeer, own a gun out of necessity due to their close proximity with bears and wolves. The vast majority of Americans do not. People from LA, Chicago, New York, San Francisco - basically the major urban areas - have no such need.

I have always found these discussions with pro-gun Americans to be difficult as they have a vested interest in the topic and, as such, have researched the topic in their spare time. Most people are just catching up once the discussion begins. The one thing that never changes is my gut feeling that having a gun-free country is superior to having a gun-saturated country. I'm really not sure how anyone could argue otherwise. The practicalities of achieving a gun-free (with exceptions) populace are probably impossible but it would be nice to think that the majority agreed that it is at least worth looking at.

Run_to_da_hills · 24-07-2012 7:18am

Father Damo wrote: »

Why? He is the funniest thing on this forum FFS :pac: I mean, if you cant get a laugh out of somebody claiming this is a staged government operation in spite of there being zero reason or motive for the government to stage it, seeing as the UN treaty does not impact US gun owners, I dont know like.

There are pleanty of valid reasons for any up and coming dictatorship to demonise and ban Gun ownership, perhaps go look at your history books instead of soaking in corporate main stream media

Father Damo wrote: »

His own mother said upon hearing the news that she knew he did it. Who knows, maybe the family are all in the CIA and have been rasiing him for the last 24 years programmed to act when required.

Tell us another one.

Once again, the corporate media has been caught spreading misinformation in order to spin a story.

In the hours after the shooting in Colorado, the corporate media reported that the mother of the accused gunman, Arlene Holmes, was quoted as telling ABC News “You have the right person” when asked about her son and the murders. Arlene Holmes now insists her comments were twisted by ABC News:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFEX94sXMq0

MadsL · 24-07-2012 7:40am

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Cheers for that incredibly condescending post.

When people use the argument it is not like that here, therefore it must be like that there. I find that rather ignorant, hence my condescension.

Irrespective of where I am from, it highlights the problem with the US.

I believe you said that you are unlikely to face that situation, and you extrapolated that to mean nobody faces that situation.

In Ireland, I will rarely find myself in a situation where I need to use "deadly force" because nobody has guns.

That is so patently absurd. There were 4-5 odd armed robberies in Dublin over the last week. Linkage > 1 2 "It is the fourth armed robbery in the area in the last two days". Over 233,120 Firearms certificates in Ireland and god knows how many relics of the IRA and Civil War are still around.

Statistically, yes you are less likely to encounter a gun in Ireland, but saying nobody has guns is demonstrably untrue.

The overwhelming majority of Americans will never find themselves in this situation either as I feel that " required the use of deadly force" is a phrase that is open to interpretation.

In the US, it's about a one in five probability that you will be a victim of one of eight crimes with about a one in twenty chance of being victim to a violent crime.

Incidentally where are you getting this "required the use of deadly force" from? I don't believe anyone here used it.

Sure, I may be mugged at knife point, but I don't really need a gun in this situation. I need to hand my money over and 99% of the time, that will be the end of it.

Hmm, interesting. If you were a self-defence expert would you also hand your money over?
What do you think would happen when your armed with a knife assailant is shown the nasty end of your concealed weapon? Statistics show 55% of the time he/she runs. (Source is further back in the thread.)

Somebody may burgle my house while I'm there. Have my things, they are only things after all, as I have insurance and I value my health more than my flatscreen and a few pieces of gold and silver.

Nice polite burglars you have. How does your wife feel about being raped before they leave? Lets say I have a safe I don't use, combination long forgotten. How long do you think I'll be beaten or my wife and kids tortured before our home invading burglars believe that I don't have the combination. You might dismiss that as paranoid, but invasions like that involving beatings for information do happen in the US.

The dangerous animals argument is disingenuous and seems to be used as a means to muddy the water in such a debate.

Speaking from your lack of experience that is.

Sure, some people, like Reindeer, own a gun out of necessity due to their close proximity with bears and wolves.

So he's off the hook then? Is that one of your criteria?

The vast majority of Americans do not. People from LA, Chicago, New York, San Francisco - basically the major urban areas - have no such need.

Yeah, because there are no large recreation areas or natural open spaces around LA, Chicago, NY or SF and Americans are prohibited by State law from leaving their city habitats. Seriously? Have you even been to the US?

What about the 20% of Americans that live in rural areas? Do they get a dispensation under your scheme?

I have always found these discussions with pro-gun Americans to be difficult as they have a vested interest in the topic and, as such, have researched the topic in their spare time.

One, I'm not American. Two, I'm not "pro-gun" any more than I am "pro-choice" or "pro-life" - these are ridiculous labels to put on people when you are too lazy to actually look at the facts (see the way I'm linking to data that supports my assertions) and draw a conclusion. I'm sorry if objectively assessing the arguments is a mental stretch for you.

Most people are just catching up once the discussion begins. The one thing that never changes is my gut feeling that having a gun-free country is superior to having a gun-saturated country.

I have news for you, you don't live in a gun-free country, far from it and if you did you probably would be calling for at least your law enforcement to have access.

I'm really not sure how anyone could argue otherwise.

I'd also like to live in a world where there is no violence or crime, the reality is I don't. However I am not naive enough to believe that if you removed all guns from a society that violence and crime would end tomorrow. The UK has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, yet has a horrific knife crime rate. Thailand has very strict gun control, but it's homicide by firearm rate is off the chart, double that of the US. It takes over 2 years to get approved for a gun in South Africa yet homicide rate is over 3 times that of the US URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_South_Africa"]source[/URL URL="http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms"]source[/URL URL="http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/thailand"]source[/URL

The practicalities of achieving a gun-free (with exceptions) populace are probably impossible but it would be nice to think that the majority agreed that it is at least worth looking at.

I think the issue is that the majority of gun owners fear they will be left defenceless whilst nothing is done about illegal gun ownership.

Manic Moran · 24-07-2012 8:33am

MadsL wrote: »

[*]Test fires on file for every weapon for immediate weapon identification

If you're talking about 'ballistic fingerprinting', that's a non-starter. Not least because barrels are an interchangeable part. I own a SIG P2340 in .40S&W. Or do I? I pull it apart, drop in a 357SIG barrel, and suddenly I have an entirely different 'fingerprint'. I guess you could theoretically 'fingerprint' every barrel which leaves the factory as they are sold separately to the firearms, but you're talking about a whole hell of a lot of additional paperwork, If you're talking about the shell casings ejected at the scene the chances of a match when a different type of ammunition is used compared to the one 'on file' is, according to CHP tests, about 40%. It's much easier to test for a ballistics match to verify if the weapon you have is the correct one, because you can use the same ammunition as you are comparing against than it is to do a 'shotgun match' kind of process.

The States of Maryland and New York are probably the most 'up' on a ballistics database, they both have them running for all handguns sold in their States. It took five years and some $2.5m before they got their first conviction in Maryland, after seven years the New York system still had not achieved a first prosecution, the NY system costs about $1m a year. I haven't found any information to see if those figures have changed in the last couple of years.

I have always found these discussions with pro-gun Americans to be difficult as they have a vested interest in the topic and, as such, have researched the topic in their spare time. Most people are just catching up once the discussion begins.

Probably because the only way to beat emotive argument is with cold, hard facts, so we have to do some researching.

People from LA, Chicago, New York, San Francisco - basically the major urban areas - have no such need.

I'm in the San Francisco area. You know we have mountain lions here? And I do go into the wild on occasion, we have rather pretty countryside out here in California.

I think the issue is that the majority of gun owners fear they will be left defenceless whilst nothing is done about illegal gun ownership.

That's only part of it. "God created all men, but Sam Colt made them all equal." For those who are never going to be able to win a hand-to-hand bout with someone bigger than them, such as many women, disabled or aged, removal of the firearm also removes their best chance of taking on their assailant on equal terms. You may recall the 911 audio on this board about a year back of some woman in the back woods of Oklahoma who ended up having to shoot some nutter beating in her door when the police still hadn't made it there in over 20 minutes.

NTM

fishy fishy · 24-07-2012 9:16am

I must say that guy either was extremely exhausted or looked like he was up to the eyes in tranquilizers when he was in the court yesterday - he could barely keep his eyes open.

24-07-2012 9:23am

I'd say it's a given he will get the death penalty.
They can claim insanity, the doped up video of him in court might help,
The booby traps will work against that though.

gobnaitolunacy · 24-07-2012 11:40am

At least 3 copycat incidents so far, fellas having a 'laugh'.
Someone's going to get themselves shot.

Leftist · 24-07-2012 11:47am

i see a lot of comments on the internet from people about how upset they are about this whole thing.

I wonder how genuinely upset these people are. Strangers to these victims. Does it effect their appetite? can they not get to sleep?

Ush1 · 24-07-2012 11:56am

RVP 11 wrote: »

I'd say it's a given he will get the death penalty.
They can claim insanity, the doped up video of him in court might help,
The booby traps will work against that though.

Why?

Canis Lupus · 24-07-2012 12:56pm

Ush1 wrote: »

Why?

Harder to claim temporary insanity when you have your flat laced with bombs. Shows a high level of premeditation.

(I guess)

Having said that looking at his appearance in the courtroom all I could think was that fella has had an epic breakdown.

10 shot dead at Batman showing in Denver

Comments