10 shot dead at Batman showing in Denver

Snickers Man · 25-07-2012 12:45am

MadsL wrote: »

In your view. I'm querying whether you seriously believe they are "basket cases" solely because they allow people to walk around with loaded guns. What is your point of view about "normal" countries like Switzerland who force its citizens to have a gun?

I never said that countries are basket cases "because" they allow open carry. But it just interested me that so many countries that feel the need to allow citizens to tool up with firearms are hopeless dangerous benighted places.

MadsL wrote: »

But you have no problem with citizens owning guns for home defence?

I think that encouraging my 80 year old father to sleep with a pistol under his pillow would be dangerous for anyone who comes into contact with him. Not all of whom would be bloodthirsty muggers eager to slit his throat for the prices of a heroin score.

MadsL wrote: »

Except that is NOT the default position, as you well know. Very rarely will you see people OCing in the US.

It's the default legal position. Americans have the right, pretty much protected by the constitution, to carry a loaded gun wherever they travel. The fact that the vast majority of Americans choose not to exercise that right just goes to show that most of them are pretty sensible people.

MadsL wrote: »

What is your point of view about "normal" countries like Switzerland who force its citizens to have a gun?

"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

There's your second amendment. And the reason for Swiss citizens being required to have an automatic weapon at home. It's for military purposes, not to ride shotgun in the wife's Nissan Micra when she goes to the shops.

I don't think the average Swiss has the right to tote a loaded firearm round the supermarket, do you? They keep to the spirit intended by the US second amendment. It's to defend their country if it ever has to to to war, which Switzerland never actually does. It's not to use on each other.

Witcher · 25-07-2012 12:53am

Snickers Man wrote: »

I don't think the average Swiss has the right to tote a loaded firearm round the supermarket, do you?

You would be suprised;

http://unitedcats.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/swiss_gun_owner.jpg

Reindeer · 25-07-2012 12:55am

Snickers Man wrote: »

"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

There's your second amendment. And the reason for Swiss citizens being required to have an automatic weapon at home. It's for military purposes, not to ride shotgun in the wife's Nissan Micra when she goes to the shops.

I don't think the average Swiss has the right to tote a loaded firearm round the supermarket, do you? They keep to the spirit intended by the US second amendment. It's to defend their country if it ever has to to to war, which Switzerland never actually does. It's not to use on each other.

In the 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court stated: "the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home."

MadsL · 25-07-2012 1:22am

Snickers Man wrote: »

I never said that countries are basket cases "because" they allow open carry. But it just interested me that so many countries that feel the need to allow citizens to tool up with firearms are hopeless dangerous benighted places.

We can argue cause and effect all night. Really not getting us anywhere.

I think that encouraging my 80 year old father to sleep with a pistol under his pillow would be dangerous for anyone who comes into contact with him. Not all of whom would be bloodthirsty muggers eager to slit his throat for the prices of a heroin score.

How can I comment, I don't know the man. On the other hand a 79 year old just chased armed robbers out of a cafe in Florida. Again we coulod go back and forth with personal examples all night.

It's the default legal position. Americans have the right, pretty much protected by the constitution, to carry a loaded gun wherever they travel.

You will find that varies, state to state. The default legal position does not mean it is the default norm just that the State chooses not to nanny its citizens. After all "most of them are pretty sensible people".

"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

There's your second amendment.

Enacted to allow citizens not to be afraid of their Govt if you study the historical context. Not sure that right expires.

And the reason for Swiss citizens being required to have an automatic weapon at home. It's for military purposes, not to ride shotgun in the wife's Nissan Micra when she goes to the shops.

As you are persisting in mocking, I find a V8 Pickup Truck more suited to shotgun racks.

I don't think the average Swiss has the right to tote a loaded firearm round the supermarket, do you?

Lol at Blay's pic.

They keep to the spirit intended by the US second amendment. It's to defend their country if it ever has to to to war, which Switzerland never actually does. It's not to use on each other.

So do you support citizens being forced to keep a gun? It seems you do from that statement.

Manic Moran · 25-07-2012 1:32am

Snickers Man wrote: »

It's the default legal position. Americans have the right, pretty much protected by the constitution, to carry a loaded gun wherever they travel.

Interestingly, that particular facet has not yet been addressed by the Supreme Court, and we are likely looking at a Circuit Court split on that issue. Many State courts have ruled in such a favour, but then all but six States have their own analogy to the 2nd in their State constitutions. A right to carry a loaded firearm wherever they travel has not been recognised, for example, within the Great State of California, and licenses are currently issued at the discretion of the local sheriff, using whatever criteria he happens to think worthy. The recent California legislation banning the practice of open carry has opened a new can of worms, as last year's court case where a Sheriff denied a resident a carry permit on discretionary grounds was dismissed on the grounds that State law permitted open carry. With that law changed, there is now no automatic entitlement recognised to carry a firearm around California, and new cases are working their way through the system.

The fact that the vast majority of Americans choose not to exercise that right just goes to show that most of them are pretty sensible people.

Or they may not trust themselves to be sufficiently competent (maybe they don't have enough range time), or maybe they simply find the practicalities difficult: With the temperatures as they are here in California, it is not necessarily easy for me to wear a concealed firearm without the silhouette showing through my thin shirt.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

There's your second amendment. And the reason for Swiss citizens being required to have an automatic weapon at home. It's for military purposes, not to ride shotgun in the wife's Nissan Micra when she goes to the shops.

[snip]

They keep to the spirit intended by the US second amendment. It's to defend their country if it ever has to to to war, which Switzerland never actually does. It's not to use on each other.

The meaning and spirit of 2A has been analysed long and hard by multiple courts over the years, to include, finally, a direct assessment by the Supreme Court in 2008. The official position does not match yours.

There are three primary reasons for the right to firearms in the 2A:
1) Personal needs. (Defence of self, hunting, any common lawful purpose)
2) Defence of the nation against foreign powers
3) Defence of the people against the government

I find a V8 Pickup Truck more suited to shotgun racks.

Have you seen the Rambox Holster? Available in the Dodge Ram, an integrated fishing pole and gun rack in the body.

http://www.chryslerinthenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/2012-Ram-1500_Rambox.jpg

NTM

NIMAN · 25-07-2012 3:34am

Some of the victims families are considering suing Warner Bros.

Only in America.

jumpguy · 25-07-2012 3:45am

NIMAN wrote: »

Some of the victims families are considering suing Warner Bros.

Only in America.

Source for this?

It wasn't me! · 25-07-2012 4:10am

The greatest irony is the knob-end who's suing them for glorifying violence. I doubt he was dragged, bound, gagged, kicking and screaming into the cinema against his will, paying them to glorify violence!

NIMAN · 25-07-2012 4:17am

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/hollyworld/warner-bros-donate-aurora-shooting-victims-batman

"The studio looks set to face at least one lawsuit as a result of the shooting: a lawyer for one of the survivors told TMZ that his client planned to sue Warner Bros. for making a violent movie that – the lawyer claims – the gunman partly mimicked. Moviegoer Torrence Brown, Jr., who was uninjured in the attack, also plans to sue the Century 16 movie theater and the suspect's doctors, said his attorney, Donald Karpel."

And
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/kareem-raheem-why-the-families-of-batman-massacre-are-wasting-their-time-suing-warner-bros-3177944.html

Canis Lupus · 25-07-2012 4:19am

jumpguy wrote: »

Source for this?

SOURCE

B.A._Baracus · 25-07-2012 4:23am

NIMAN wrote: »

Some of the victims families are considering suing Warner Bros.

Only in America.

Thats insane.

Now while it was such a tragedy what happened.... and it is such a tragedy. It is not Warner Brothers fault or anyone attached to the Batman movie. It was some nutjob acting on his own mental thoughts to kill these people.

Upon hearing they are trying to sue I am honestly asking myself questions here. Is it the families trying to seek blame because they are in shock? ... A dirty f**king wanker of a lawyer getting in their ear or is it ... perhaps as shocking as it is... about financial gain from a personal tragedy.

I honestly don't know.

MadsL · 25-07-2012 4:30am

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Thats insane.

Now while it was such a tragedy what happened.... and it is such a tragedy. It is not Warner Brothers fault or anyone attached to the Batman movie. It was some nutjob acting on his own mental thoughts to kill these people.

Upon hearing they are trying to sue I am honestly asking myself questions here. Is it the families trying to seek blame because they are in shock? ... A dirty f**king wanker of a lawyer getting in their ear or is it ... perhaps as shocking as it is... about financial gain from a personal tragedy.

I honestly don't know.

About the only rational thing I can see is suing Cinemark (not that I approve of random sue everyone and let the judge sort it) based on the fact Cinemark had been told that their no guns policy possibly meant that a rampage attack might not be stopped by concealed weapon carriers. I think a judge would also strike that down.

Suing everyone bar God in my view is pretty nauseating.

B.A._Baracus · 25-07-2012 4:34am

Ok, go here:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xsdlg6_batman-shooting-victim-suing-warner-brothers_news (If an ad pops up just click the X in the top right hand corner. Its not youtube so I cant embed it on here)

Watching this just makes me hate people.

Helix · 25-07-2012 5:42am

so he's suing warner bros because the movie was too violent, and the shooter mimicked some of the action

how did he manage that? given that the showing was the premier?

NIMAN · 25-07-2012 5:45am

No more links needed folks.
I was asked for a source and provided 2 links.

25-07-2012 11:52am

Jesus, that's just crazy.
His doctor, the theatre, Warner Bros??

Only in America.....

Joekers · 25-07-2012 12:52pm

http://m.rte.ie/ten/2012/0725/balec.html
Fair play to him, woulda been easier to just ignore the situation altogether

JennyBurke101 · 25-07-2012 12:56pm

I LOVE Christian Bale, I always have and I always will, there is no denying that what he did was incredably sweet!!!! He didnt have to do it and I am sure it brigtened up the victims day

As for that thing in court at the moment, how someone can be so evil is just so shocking!!! Its awful to think that something EVERYONE was looking foward to has been spoiled by one horrible pathetic monster!!!

Mickeroo · 25-07-2012 1:24pm

NIMAN wrote: »

Some of the victims families are considering suing Warner Bros.

Only in America.

Ridiculous. As films go the violence is pretty tame in it tbh.

I just can't help but think that anyone who was big enough a fan of the series to go to a midnight premier would be turning in their graves now at their bereaved relative's actions.

Let's hope the case gets thrown out.

Lord of the Bongs · 25-07-2012 1:49pm

So, violent films, incessant hours in front of a PC or PS3 playing world of warcraft or GTA and guns for sale beside your local newsagent really, actually, bizarrely does make people, particularly young people, killers, who would have believed it? This isnt entirely an american problem but clearly they have become so desensitised as a whole nation towards violence that inevitably they produce this type of senseless value towards life.

Why were babies (under 12) allowed into a midnight showing of a 15+ film?

Hande hoche! · 25-07-2012 1:52pm

Lord of the Bongs wrote: »

So, violent films, incessant hours in front of a PC or PS3 playing world of warcraft or GTA and guns for sale beside your local newsagent really, actually, bizarrely does make people, particularly young people, killers, who would have believed it? This isnt entirely an american problem but clearly they have become so desensitised as a whole nation towards violence that inevitably they produce this type of senseless value towards life.

Why were babies (under 12) allowed into a midnight showing of a 15+ film?

It's the PG-13, R etc. system in the U.S.

Lord of the Bongs · 25-07-2012 1:55pm

Hande hoche! wrote: »

It's the PG-13, R etc. system in the U.S.

and allowing them into a midnight showing, the kids that were murdered were babies? shouldnt they have been in bed. dont they have baby sitters US?

madness

MegGustaa · 25-07-2012 2:10pm

Lord of the Bongs wrote: »

and allowing them into a midnight showing, the kids that were murdered were babies? shouldnt they have been in bed. dont they have baby sitters US?

madness

It was a midnight showing...on a Thursday night during the summer holidays. No reason why a child under 13 with a parent shouldn't be allowed in. For all you know, for the six year old who died, this was some kind of special treat she had been looking forward to for ages. It's unlikely that if a parent was bringing a child to that showing that the kid was being dragged along for lack of a babysitter.

And what does it even matter? Madness is not permitting a parent to bring a six year old to the movies. Madness is a lunatic with guns and tear gas getting into a cinema and killing people, including innocent children.

JennyBurke101 · 25-07-2012 2:18pm

MegGustaa wrote: »

It was a midnight showing...on a Thursday night during the summer holidays. No reason why a child under 13 with a parent shouldn't be allowed in. For all you know, for the six year old who died, this was some kind of special treat she had been looking forward to for ages. It's unlikely that if a parent was bringing a child to that showing that the kid was being dragged along for lack of a babysitter.

And what does it even matter? Madness is not permitting a parent to bring a six year old to the movies. Madness is a lunatic with guns and tear gas getting into a cinema and killing people, including innocent children.

I could not agree with you more!!!!!

Lord of the Bongs · 25-07-2012 2:19pm

MegGustaa wrote: »

It was a midnight showing...on a Thursday night during the summer holidays. No reason why a child under 13 with a parent shouldn't be allowed in. For all you know, for the six year old who died, this was some kind of special treat she had been looking forward to for ages. It's unlikely that if a parent was bringing a child to that showing that the kid was being dragged along for lack of a babysitter.

And what does it even matter? Madness is not permitting a parent to bring a six year old to the movies. Madness is a lunatic with guns and tear gas getting into a cinema and killing people, including innocent children.

no, I wouldnt be bringing my 'child' to a totally inappropriate film, most of which they would not comprehend and end up with nightmares, at an ungodly hour when they should be at home in bed. but that just me.

Lord of the Bongs · 25-07-2012 2:20pm

JennyBurke101 wrote: »

I could not agree with you more!!!!!

i could not disagree even more!!

Tony EH · 25-07-2012 2:30pm

MegGustaa wrote: »

It was a midnight showing...on a Thursday night during the summer holidays. No reason why a child under 13 with a parent shouldn't be allowed in. For all you know, for the six year old who died, this was some kind of special treat she had been looking forward to for ages. It's unlikely that if a parent was bringing a child to that showing that the kid was being dragged along for lack of a babysitter.

And what does it even matter? Madness is not permitting a parent to bring a six year old to the movies. Madness is a lunatic with guns and tear gas getting into a cinema and killing people, including innocent children.

It goes to show how commonplace this type of massacre is getting in the States, when some people can be absolutely aghast at parents bring their kid to a midnight movie, when the main issue is that a guy spent $20.000 tooling up with a private arsenal and shooting innocent people.

JennyBurke101 · 25-07-2012 2:40pm

Lord of the Bongs wrote: »

no, I wouldnt be bringing my 'child' to a totally inappropriate film, most of which they would not comprehend and end up with nightmares, at an ungodly hour when they should be at home in bed. but that just me.

Yes well each to there own - but to be honest bringing a child to certian films that may be a little older from them isnt the worst thing a parent can do, especially if a child loves them (depending on the film) - plus Batman isn't a totally inappropriate film, its slightly dark but...isnt Batman against guns and killing? If someone brought there child to Anti-Christ I would consider that to be an inappropriate film, but I have seen many a child go into 12 and 15 films with parents to simply enjoy it (especially dad's and there sons)!

Besides, I really hate the attitude of well why was a 6 year old in the film, that isnt the major issue, the major issue is a killer was there to KILL!

Lord of the Bongs · 25-07-2012 2:45pm

Tony EH wrote: »

It goes to show how commonplace this type of massacre is getting in the States, when some people can be absolutely aghast at parents bring their kid to a midnight movie, when the main issue is that a guy spent $20.000 tooling up with a private arsenal and shooting innocent people.

you could also be of the persuasion that in some way this type of behaviour (bringing kids to inappropriate movies at inappropriate times) may have an adverse on the child later in life, in that they might become warped and go on a shooting spree.

The main issue is WHY this guy did what he did and like it or not a large proportion of the blame lies with how he was brought up.

MegGustaa · 25-07-2012 2:49pm

Lord of the Bongs wrote: »

no, I wouldnt be bringing my 'child' to a totally inappropriate film, most of which they would not comprehend and end up with nightmares, at an ungodly hour when they should be at home in bed. but that just me.

It's entirely possible that the six year old had seen the previous two movies in the trilogy, understood them and didn't get nightmares from them. I know a 7 year old child that got nightmares from Toy Story 3 and The Cat In The Hat, doesn't make those films inappropriate for all children.

If this shooting had happened in a school or a restaurant or a library or a church you would not be questioning why a child was there. A mass shooting is a mass shooting no matter where it happens. People should be able to go to a safe public place and not expect to be a victim of mass murder. Six year olds shouldn't be shot, wherever they happen to be. It's so terribly unfortunate that those people happened to be there and that they had to die, but the fact is that they were there, for one reason or another, and they died for no good reason.

Whenever you change the focus from the insanity of a person opening fire on members of the public (any where) to something as trivial as a parent's decision to bring their child to the cinema, you sound like you're trying to make it the parent's fault.

10 shot dead at Batman showing in Denver

Comments