Movie Theatre in Colorado

[Jonse]

I was thinking about it, and why are there so many people complaining about the baby being brought there? I mean I don't really think late night movies are the best place for young children myself, but it's not like anyone goes thinking that something so terrible would happen. Regardless, wish there was something I could do to help everyone.

Just another stupid thing for people to latch onto and try and blame someone else for this. In no way was it the fault of the baby or the baby's parents.

[polar sky]

Guns are the worst invention man has ever made.

If guns didn't exist, people would kill each other with swords. It's not a Gun issue, it's a human issue. People are gonna kill people with or without guns. He could have made fire bombs burned the whole place down, or used some chemical spray or acid. The point is, humans are the problem here.

[polar sky]

Check this video out, pretty interesting stuff:

[polar sky]

Guns are the worst invention man has ever made.

You don't think the atom bomb is worse?

Guns have killed hundreds of millions of people, and have started hundreds of pointless wars.

Nuclear Weaponry are most definitely an appalling invention, but on balance have caused far less fatalities. There is also the argument for their use as the ultimate deterrent, no nation dare use a nuclear device with others in possession of such weaponry.

Guns are just abhorrent.

There have been wars for Hundreds of Thousands of Years. Were guns present during The Trojan War? No. Most people only think of Wars that happened in the last 100 years. Humans have been killing each other since day one. Wars fought with sticks and stones, wars fought with bows and arrows, wars fought with swords and knives. We kill for power and control. Look at animals, Apes killing each other in the wild over food, mates and territory. No matter how advance we are mentally, we are still animals.

If you take guns away, you'll have to take swords and knives away, and if you take swords and knives away, you'll have to take bows and arrows away, and if you take bows and arrows away, you'll have to take rocks and sticks away, ect. It's a Human problem, not a weapon problem.

[Braddock]

Guns are the worst invention man has ever made.

If guns didn't exist, people would kill each other with swords. It's not a Gun issue, it's a human issue. People are gonna kill people with or without guns. He could have made fire bombs burned the whole place down, or used some chemical spray or acid. The point is, humans are the problem here.

Except people wouldn't have swords. You need to look at other countries a little more.

[Braddock]

There have been wars for Hundreds of Thousands of Years. Were guns present during The Trojan War? No. Most people only think of Wars that happened in the last 100 years. Humans have been killing each other since day one. The first weapon was the fist, then a rock, then a stick, then a bow and arrow, then a sword, then a gun, then a bomb, ect. You see it in nature too. Monkeys killing each other in the wild over food, mates and territory. No matter how advance we are mentally, we are still animals.

Violence is declining throughout the world. One of the many, many factors of this is a greater control over guns. Read Steven Pinker's The Decline of Violence.

It isn't simply a case of 'they are going to do it anyway'. Look at the statistics in America, then look elsewhere. Some people will kill, but the presence of the current gun laws gets far more people involved who wouldn't be if things were different. The argument for tougher gun laws doesn't end with what mass murderers do.

[polar sky]

There have been wars for Hundreds of Thousands of Years. Were guns present during The Trojan War? No. Most people only think of Wars that happened in the last 100 years. Humans have been killing each other since day one. The first weapon was the fist, then a rock, then a stick, then a bow and arrow, then a sword, then a gun, then a bomb, ect. You see it in nature too. Monkeys killing each other in the wild over food, mates and territory. No matter how advance we are mentally, we are still animals.

Violence is declining throughout the world. One of the many, many factors of this is a greater control over guns. Read Steven Pinker's The Decline of Violence.

It isn't simply a case of 'they are going to do it anyway'. Look at the statistics in America, then look elsewhere. Some people will kill, but the presence of the current gun laws gets far more people involved who wouldn't be if things were different. The argument for tougher gun laws doesn't end with what mass murderers do.

So how are law abiding citizens supposed to protect themselves from criminals with guns?

In the four years after the United Kingdom banned handguns in 1996, gun crime rose by an astounding 40 percent.

Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51 percent, unarmed robberies by 37 percent, assaults by 24 percent and kidnappings by 43 percent.

While murders in Australia fell by 3 percent, manslaughter rose by 16 percent.

[fujee]

You don't think the atom bomb is worse?

Guns have killed hundreds of millions of people, and have started hundreds of pointless wars.

Nuclear Weaponry are most definitely an appalling invention, but on balance have caused far less fatalities. There is also the argument for their use as the ultimate deterrent, no nation dare use a nuclear device with others in possession of such weaponry.

Guns are just abhorrent.

There have been wars for Hundreds of Thousands of Years. Were guns present during The Trojan War? No. Most people only think of Wars that happened in the last 100 years. Humans have been killing each other since day one. Wars fought with sticks and stones, wars fought with bows and arrows, wars fought with swords and knives. We kill for power and control. Look at animals, Apes killing each other in the wild over food, mates and territory. No matter how advance we are mentally, we are still animals.

If you take guns away, you'll have to take swords and knives away, and if you take swords and knives away, you'll have to take bows and arrows away, and if you take bows and arrows away, you'll have to take rocks and sticks away, ect. It's a Human problem, not a weapon problem.

I totally agree, humans are inherently violent, however it is that animalistic tendency which has enabled man to overcome the elements and flourish as a species and subsequently create civilization - but that is another argument.

But yeah, I still stand by my point they are the worst invention man has ever made - they give opportunity to take a life or cause tremendous suffering with a sense of detachment, the shooter usually doesn't experience the suffering at close proximity and guns enable a quick procession and getaway which doesn't allow for the act to truly sink in - the contemplation and remorse for killing/hurting someone is diminished with the use of a gun. Whereas more primitive weaponry immerses the person in the experience which perhaps resonates with them profoundly once the anger has subsided, and they have come to terms with their actions.

I can't really think of anything which has caused more suffering than the gun.

[Jonse]

I am also appalled at the number of people who want to paint this as some sort of conspiracy with the notion towards gun control. What a terrible distraction from the victims and those who suffered here.

[Julian Candy]

I'm really upset with how much coverage this incident is getting, mostly because I know the media is only milking this for all it's worth. Sure the victims deserve to be shown in this time but do I really need to hear the 911 calls? No. This is only giving the publicity the guy wanted. When the photos of Cho Seung-Hui hit the media, were they helping the victims? No. When John Lennon was shot, Paul and Yoko wished that no one would ever talk about the guy again because he didn't deserve any fame. All this excess coverage might do is inspire other people to copy his actions for the fame.

Sure you can talk to the families and such, but all this gun talk and excess publicity is pointless and almost sickens me. The rest of the country really needs to move on with their own lives.

People are only using this to their own benefit.

[2020k]

I agree with you to a point, Julianne Candy. One thing I don't like about the way tragedies are reported is that it's incredibly easy to obtain a 9-1-1 call and exploit it to a mass audience. They should be kept, for the most part, confidential. Or some sort of system should be put in place to keep them out of the hands of companies involved in newscasting.

However, I do not think the story should be ignored. Ignorance is not bliss. Reporters need to be more responsible with how news is presented.

Example: I went on CNN today and read that Syria is waving around a big ole' statement that they have weapons of mass destruction. It was under the report of the Colorado shooting. Actually, sadly enough, I hate to admit that I'm not really sure of many aspects of what's going on in Syria because it's overshadowed with footage of people talking about suicide bombings there and focusing on the shock factor of it and this Colorado shooting, rather than taking time out to actually present news. That's the part that irks me.

Sure, it's okay to present the violence. It's okay to show the viewers what's going on to educate them on it. But, the line is crossed when news stories are taken from things like learning about the Colorado "suspect" and what went on inside the courtroom today, and just ignoring it, to, instead milk YouTube footage of people running from the theater some more. There lies the point in which education stops in the name of keeping views glued to their televisions for the repeated action shots and the emotional immediacy of violence.

I hope this wasn't an irrelevant tangent.

[Julian Candy]

I agree with you to a point, Julianne Candy. One thing I don't like about the way tragedies are reported is that it's incredibly easy to obtain a 9-1-1 call and exploit it to a mass audience. They should be kept, for the most part, confidential. Or some sort of system should be put in place to keep them out of the hands of companies involved in newscasting.

However, I do not think the story should be ignored. Ignorance is not bliss. Reporters need to be more responsible with how news is presented.

Example: I went on CNN today and read that Syria is waving around a big ole' statement that they have weapons of mass destruction. It was under the report of the Colorado shooting. Actually, sadly enough, I hate to admit that I'm not really sure of many aspects of what's going on in Syria because it's overshadowed with footage of people talking about suicide bombings there and focusing on the shock factor of it and this Colorado shooting, rather than taking time out to actually present news. That's the part that irks me.

Sure, it's okay to present the violence. It's okay to show the viewers what's going on to educate them on it. But, the line is crossed when news stories are taken from things like learning about the Colorado "suspect" and what went on inside the courtroom today, and just ignoring it, to, instead milk YouTube footage of people running from the theater some more. There lies the point in which education stops in the name of keeping views glued to their televisions for the repeated action shots and the emotional immediacy of violence.

I hope this wasn't an irrelevant tangent.

That's what I meant to say, a story like this shouldn't go unnoticed but the way the media milks it sickens me.

[Braddock]

There have been wars for Hundreds of Thousands of Years. Were guns present during The Trojan War? No. Most people only think of Wars that happened in the last 100 years. Humans have been killing each other since day one. The first weapon was the fist, then a rock, then a stick, then a bow and arrow, then a sword, then a gun, then a bomb, ect. You see it in nature too. Monkeys killing each other in the wild over food, mates and territory. No matter how advance we are mentally, we are still animals.

Violence is declining throughout the world. One of the many, many factors of this is a greater control over guns. Read Steven Pinker's The Decline of Violence.

It isn't simply a case of 'they are going to do it anyway'. Look at the statistics in America, then look elsewhere. Some people will kill, but the presence of the current gun laws gets far more people involved who wouldn't be if things were different. The argument for tougher gun laws doesn't end with what mass murderers do.

So how are law abiding citizens supposed to protect themselves from criminals with guns?

In the four years after the United Kingdom banned handguns in 1996, gun crime rose by an astounding 40 percent.

Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51 percent, unarmed robberies by 37 percent, assaults by 24 percent and kidnappings by 43 percent.

While murders in Australia fell by 3 percent, manslaughter rose by 16 percent.

I'm not surprised gun crime went up after the ban, as many people were prosecuted where they wouldn't have been formerly. That didn't mean everyone went mental with guns. Gun crime includes possession. Gun possession is now far down in comparison to them.

Law abiding citizens protect themselves by not stocking guns themselves, creating a safer environment, and complying with the law, both in terms of following the law and reporting crimes.

Please take a look at Europe and learn something. Surely you are aware at how radically different America is to other countries and it doesn't take a genius to work out why. It's not your fault. It's fear. Sales of guns will rocket after this tragedy. If you don't believe this is counterproductive then we are very different people.

[Braddock]

I am also appalled at the number of people who want to paint this as some sort of conspiracy with the notion towards gun control. What a terrible distraction from the victims and those who suffered here.

Why? When is a good time to talk about gun control. The issue is how it has been reported, not that it has sparked discussion. I think there is greater respect to the deceased to try and prevent future repititions of this rather than wasting time for it all to pass and then nothing happening about it.

[Jonse]

I am also appalled at the number of people who want to paint this as some sort of conspiracy with the notion towards gun control. What a terrible distraction from the victims and those who suffered here.

Why? When is a good time to talk about gun control. The issue is how it has been reported, not that it has sparked discussion. I think there is greater respect to the deceased to try and prevent future repititions of this rather than wasting time for it all to pass and then nothing happening about it.

In the matter of gun control correlated to this instance, I don't think there's a good time. Almost always it's been people yelling about how this event is going to influence the United States government to agree to some sort of total disarmament. The US has had the second amendment since its conception and that's pretty much it, it isn't going away because of another shooter.

That's why it bothers me that people keep whining about this. Not even out of concern for the victims but out of concern they may have their gun taken away.

What you've said is much more noble, however I don't see a plausible solution that would effectively stop something like this from happening again. The closest I can find is making it mandatory that the theater emergency exit has an alarm that goes off when opened so everybody leaves.

[Waterbagel]

The closest I can find is making it mandatory that the theater emergency exit has an alarm that goes off when opened so everybody leaves.

Then they'll come in through the front door with not quite a stash of armaments/armor.

Taking away the mediums through which people will act violently will not stop the violence. It will only limit the abilities and freedoms of the law abiding citizens.

The only way to stop violence without limiting our own freedoms would be to take away the desire for violence, which.. Might be just about impossible.

[Jonse]

The closest I can find is making it mandatory that the theater emergency exit has an alarm that goes off when opened so everybody leaves.

Then they'll come in through the front door with not quite a stash of armaments/armor.

Taking away the mediums through which people will act violently will not stop the violence. It will only limit the abilities and freedoms of the law abiding citizens.

The only way to stop violence without limiting our own freedoms would be to take away the desire for violence, which.. Might be just about impossible.

I know, and this is what ultimately needs to be done, through generations of education.

But I mean in terms of what we can do right now. There's not a whole lot. It doesn't encompass taking away guns either, as he'd probably have built an IED and threw it into the crowd.

[Braddock]

The closest I can find is making it mandatory that the theater emergency exit has an alarm that goes off when opened so everybody leaves.

Then they'll come in through the front door with not quite a stash of armaments/armor.

Taking away the mediums through which people will act violently will not stop the violence. It will only limit the abilities and freedoms of the law abiding citizens.

The only way to stop violence without limiting our own freedoms would be to take away the desire for violence, which.. Might be just about impossible.

I know, and this is what ultimately needs to be done, through generations of education.

But I mean in terms of what we can do right now. There's not a whole lot. It doesn't encompass taking away guns either, as he'd probably have built an IED and threw it into the crowd.

But that's possible in other countries but it doesn't happen as often as gun rampages happen in America. Personally I'd go for restriction on par with most European countries rather than just a few more restrictions. The general public don't need guns.

As was tweeted today:

In every country, there are narcissistic, inadequate, fame-hungry losers who want to kill someone. In most countries they don’t have guns.

In every country, there are psychotic crazies who want to kill someone. In most countries they don’t have guns.

In every country, quite ordinary people lose their temper and temporarily want to kill someone. In most countries they don’t have guns.

[Jonse]

Then they'll come in through the front door with not quite a stash of armaments/armor.

Taking away the mediums through which people will act violently will not stop the violence. It will only limit the abilities and freedoms of the law abiding citizens.

The only way to stop violence without limiting our own freedoms would be to take away the desire for violence, which.. Might be just about impossible.

I know, and this is what ultimately needs to be done, through generations of education.

But I mean in terms of what we can do right now. There's not a whole lot. It doesn't encompass taking away guns either, as he'd probably have built an IED and threw it into the crowd.

But that's possible in other countries but it doesn't happen as often as gun rampages happen in America. Personally I'd go for restriction on par with most European countries rather than just a few more restrictions. The general public don't need guns.

As was tweeted today:

In every country, there are narcissistic, inadequate, fame-hungry losers who want to kill someone. In most countries they don’t have guns.

In every country, there are psychotic crazies who want to kill someone. In most countries they don’t have guns.

In every country, quite ordinary people lose their temper and temporarily want to kill someone. In most countries they don’t have guns.

And while you're totally entitled to that opinion, there's many law abiding citizens who would be extremely disappointed in total restrictions. Americans are often hostile towards authority (we've got plenty reason to be) and taking away guns wouldn't go over well at all. At this point in time it would almost undoubtedly cause a uproar of violence and we don't need this.

Maybe, MAYBE restricting the sales of weapons from individuals who haven't been approved for firearm ownership and haven't proven they have a serious reason (i.e. dangerous area, hunting) to own a firearm temporarily while they figure out a way to calm people down in the long term and prevent against this sort of thing from happening as much could be a viable option.

But the idea of restriction in line with European countries just isn't applicable at the moment. Here's the thing: the United States is not a European country. This country has a very special type of batshit insane that you see in a lot of people, the kind that's been fueled by every day being told you live in "the greatest country on earth" while simultaneously your life completely sucks. I have seriously doubted, for a long time, that the occurrence of shootings in the US is solely a product of having those weapons. There's too many people here (keep in mind that with 300 million+ citizens, the number of shootings/violent events are going to be higher just out of sheer population), things are quite hectic and unfortunately, every so often someone snaps. Personally, until Americans on a large scale mature a bit, I feel much, much safer possessing a gun. That's just my take on it. I'll most likely never use it, but I know it's there just in case I'm ever in a life threatening situation where someone is trying to kill me/others.

[Braddock]

And while you're totally entitled to that opinion, there's many law abiding citizens who would be extremely disappointed in total restrictions. Americans are often hostile towards authority (we've got plenty reason to be) and taking away guns wouldn't go over well at all. At this point in time it would almost undoubtedly cause a uproar of violence and we don't need this.

Maybe, MAYBE restricting the sales of weapons from individuals who haven't been approved for firearm ownership and haven't proven they have a serious reason (i.e. dangerous area, hunting) to own a firearm temporarily while they figure out a way to calm people down in the long term and prevent against this sort of thing from happening as much could be a viable option.

But the idea of restriction in line with European countries just isn't applicable at the moment. Here's the thing: the United States is not a European country. This country has a very special type of batshit insane that you see in a lot of people, the kind that's been fueled by every day being told you live in "the greatest country on earth" while simultaneously your life completely sucks. I have seriously doubted, for a long time, that the occurrence of shootings in the US is solely a product of having those weapons. There's too many people here (keep in mind that with 300 million+ citizens, the number of shootings/violent events are going to be higher just out of sheer population), things are quite hectic and unfortunately, every so often someone snaps. Personally, until Americans on a large scale mature a bit, I feel much, much safer possessing a gun. That's just my take on it. I'll most likely never use it, but I know it's there just in case I'm ever in a life threatening situation where someone is trying to kill me/others.

I see your point, especially with the population size, but with regards to having a gun just in case anybody wants to kill you, I don't believe the risk of somebody wanting to kill you is great enough for you to bring a gun into the house, thus increasing the general risk in the house. What are the chances that you will be in a position where somebody will want to kill you, specifically? Then what are the chances that they will want to kill you whilst you are in your home? (This is presuming you don't take it out with you). There are greater chances that that gun will be used in a variety of other ways, such as fired accidentally, used against you, brought out and used when you aren't fully aware of the situation and it not being required (somebody is breaking in to your house and you might need protection - this doesn't warrant shooting them but the chances are if you find them you might use it out of fear/misunderstanding a situation, when in fact the most logical thing to do is let them have what they want, if they have a weapon, and report the crime. This increases your chances of living).

I don't see why you have reason to have more hostility to authority than others, though that may be my ignorance.

It would need to be a gradual restrictions process, but America could get there. But it has to start somewhere and people will always believe 'we don't need this right now'. I don't personally think you need all the gun violence right now either.