Yep. Don't know why I copy/pasted the same video twice. LOL!
One from this past Saturday:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4hmiFElKgY
Yep. Don't know why I copy/pasted the same video twice. LOL!
One from this past Saturday:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4hmiFElKgY
LOL, it is good fun and slowly getting better. Still a learning experience every single time.
He does, but this quote was thought provoking (from the same article):
Jordan Ghawi, whose sister Jessica was among the 12 fatalities, was not in the courtroom.
...
He described Holmes as a coward and a genius. "I don't believe for a second that he's sitting there with his wide eyes and pretending to be incoherent," Ghawi said. "He knows what he's doing."
Twitter: @3YardsandACloud
Addition to some of the arguments for others carrying, you have the deterrent factor. It was a dark theater, so if multiple people had pulled guns, he wouldn't have been able to specifically target them all and try and kill them first, especially not with the clouds of gas in the air distorting his view. If he saw multiple people with guns pointed at him, or was shoot by one of those guns, it very well may have ended the shooting spree sooner, either by taking him down (if he was indeed wearing a tactical vest and not a bulletproof vest), or by scaring him off if he's the one getting shot at and not the one doing the shooting.
Yes, others could have been hit, that will always be a possibility when guns are involved.
Jeff, found that interesting and entirely plausible as well when I first read the description that he was just staring off into space, etc. Someone incoherent or "gone" doesn't align with the motivated individual who put all that thought and work into his apartment IED setup.
Well of course I know that...that is why I said he "looks" gone. I know their defense will likely be that he is mentally incapable or something like that, just saying by first look of the guy I'm not surprised he would do such a thing.
Obviously anyone that does things of these nature have something wrong with them.
Yep, this shit was premeditated entirely and he knew exactly what the hell he was doing. To booby trap his apartment to such an extent that it took bomb squads days just to even disable the worst of it (but not all of it), as well as some smaller stuff they had no choice at all but to just plain blow the shit up because they couldn't disable it, there is no way in hell anyone would ever convince me even a tiny, tiny fucking bit that he was mentally incompetent. It took him months to do everything, ordering and building the bombs, buying the guns, ordering ammo and other stuff on the internet. No one will ever convince me this fucker went insane 6 months ago and did all of this shit while insane or incompetent.
I'd like to submit this story on why people carrying can be a huge benefit. I've bolded a line that I think is most important:
Spoiler: show
In a lot of cases (and I think this may be one of them), if the gunman thought there was a chance of getting fired back at, they might not do it in the first place.
Here's a story on why people carrying can be a huge benefit. (I didn't hear about this until seeing it mentioned in comments regarding the CO Theater Shooter.) I've bolded a line that I think is worth noting:
Spoiler: show
In a lot of cases, if the gunman thought there was a chance of getting fired back at, they might not do it in the first place.
Last edited by cdj; 07-24-2012 at 07:44 AM.
Yep. These "no gun zones" are nothing but a false sense of security. If anything, it makes you nothing but a massively bigger target because the criminals and psychos know that virtually everyone in that place will not be able to defend themselves because they won't be armed. Unless you're dealing with gangs or something, a lot of these criminals are chicken-shits. If they think there's a chance they could get shot at, they aren't going to do something at a place. Those guys fit that category perfectly. They tried to rob the place because they thought there would be no one with a gun there and they would be able to do their thing. As soon as someone started shooting, they were running scared and trying to run away.
If the same had been the case at the theater, again, I personally think if even one person had been armed, the whole thing could have ended sooner, either by someone shooting and incapacitating the guy, or by scaring him off and out of the building when it goes from having run of the place to shoot as he pleases to unexpectedly being shot at in return. Yes, there will always be the risk of yourself hitting an innocent bystander from missing who you're shooting at, but that is always going to be a risk regardless of where you're at. It all comes down to personally deciding if it's a necessary risk.
The amount of time it would have taken police and even SWAT to get there, that guy could have killed into the hundreds if he had kept shooting everyone he could and even left that theater and maybe gone into another theater. He stopped shooting and left before the first police response had arrived at the theater. The death toll could have been so, so much higher. In a case like that night at the theater, yes, I feel the risk of possibly hitting an innocent person when firing back at the shooter would have been a justified and necessary risk. If you have the means to stop the attack by being armed and carrying a gun that night, or watch dozens more people get shot because of doing nothing to avoid accidentally hitting someone else other than the shooter, I don't see how you don't try and take down the shooter.
I REALLY don't want to get into a gigantic discussion on this, but I'll just simply say this:
The US is #1 in the world in gun related crimes every year (not related to war or inability to police it's own country, mind you) and, if you add up the rest of the world's numbers, they aren't equal to the number the US averages.
The difference between the US and those other countries? We can legally buy as many guns as we want (not to mention buy ridiculously overpowered guns for no reason), while these other countries have laws that make owning anything besides a handgun that must be worn in plain view at all times illegal.
People in the US aren't more nuts than the rest of the world so there has to be another reason for shit like this to happen and the logical thing is not making guns like what he used and bought legally available at all. Sure, you can say things like, "He'll just get them illegally then." At least not making it perfectly legal to buy thousands of rounds of ammunition for a gun that can easily be made automatic instead of semi-automatic that is still legal to buy would be a deterrent from something like this happening.
Theaters may ban costumes.
Because costumes are the problem. #PleaseStopOverreatingAmerica
Well this could have possibly ended worse if indeed his intentions were to do similar.
http://news.yahoo.com/3-arrested-sep...080930278.html
Riiiiiight, because you bringing in a gun and threatening people was an act of passivity and friendliness and of course you had the best of intentions for the people you were robbing. Yeah, the people being threatened should have know that!'I was down, and I’m not going to continue to shoot you,' he said
mors:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate
I suggest you don't go to Belarus given your logic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence
Oh what? Finland has a higher non-firearm murder rate than the US???
Australia has a lower firearm and non-firearm homicide rate than the US but allows citizens to own guns, as do other countries. Perhaps it is CULTURE and certain LIFESTYLES that perpetuate gun violence moreso than guns. How about fixing THAT, which would help with many other aspects of this lazy-ass, free-loading society that is being coddled, instead of blaming inanimate objects? Nah, just easier to make excuses and let people skate.
Your logic of overpowered guns is silly also, because, well..........
http://www.warriortalk.com/showthrea...d-in-homicides
http://www.americanfirearms.org/statistics.php#11Violent Crime in Europe and the USA
Violent crime in the US and Europe Overall robbery and assault rates in the United States are comparable to other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, notwithstanding the much lower levels of gun ownership in those countries.
[a b Kleck, Gary (2004). "Measures of Gun Ownership Levels of Macro-Level Crime and Violence Research". Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 41: pp. 3-36. NCJ 203876.]
In Britain based on year 2000 statistics supplied by UK Home Office the following percentages of the population of these countries were exposed to crime. Among the countries compared the USA has the lowest number of incidents. The UK and Australia do not allow ownership of handguns. About 3% of the Germany population own firearms.
The lowest rate - for the year 200 period in the USA there were 11,605,751 incidents of reported crime based on a population of 300,000,000 (06) - 3.87% of the population was exposed to crime
Australia which does not allow ownership of handguns had a reported crime rate of 1,431,929 based on a population of 20,000,000 - 7.16% of the population was exposed to crime.
Germany with a population of 82 million (05) has a reported 6.264,723 crimes or 7.64% of the population was exposed to crime.
In Britain there were 5,170,843 incidents of reported crime to the police based on a population of 60, 587,000 (06) - 8.5% of the population was exposed to crime.
Highest rate - New Zealand with a population of 4,000,000 (06) had a reported crime with 427,230 incidents - 10.68% of the population was exposed to crime.
Why the hell is this country allowing knives????
http://www.americanfirearms.org/statistics.php#11The number of handguns used in crime (approximately 7,500 per year) is very small compared to the approximately 70 million handguns in the United States (i.e., 0.011%) [Committee on Law and Justice (2004). "Chapter 4", Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. National Academy of Science. ]
People with a criminal record are more likely to die as homicide victims.
Does Gun Prohibition Work?
Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%.
According to Crime in the United States 2004, second to firearms, knives and cutting instruments were the weapons most frequently used by persons committing homicides in the United States. Offenders employed knives to kill members of the general public more than they used rifles and shotguns combined.
Shouldn't Switzerland be in complete disarray because of firearms being present?Banning so called assault weapons makes little sense. Assault weapons by definition are weapons with selective fire rates including fully automatic fire - machine guns. Machine guns were banned in the US in 1934. Military type arms sold in the US today are semi-automatic only, meaning you get one shot for each trigger pull. These weapons barely register in homicide statistics at all. They look good in the arms of politicians though. In 2005, 75% of the 10,100 homicides committed using firearms in the United States were committed using handguns, compared to 4% with rifles, 5% with shotguns, and the rest with a type of firearm not specified. Assault weapons are so rarely used they don't qualify for a separate category.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm
http://www.theblessingsofliberty.com...article11.html
That's the thing with all this media glorification of shit like this. All discussion turns into mindless babble eventually.
Good thing I don't pay much attention to the news anymore.
I just don't buy this perspective of "deterrent." If that were the case Texas should have one of the lowest crime rates around due to the frequent use of he death penalty. If deterrent worked than the USA should not have one of the largest prison populations in the developed world. Personally I am of the philosophy of the fewer guns in society, any society, the better. Now let's put this in perspective though... my opinion on this is a minority voice on this forum (a liberal, non-gun owning Canadian who believes in healthcare and social welfare over warfare and who also who lives in Vcr, one of the most laid back cities in North America).
Bookmarks