Off Topic: Batman Shooting

[tcnml]

In a smoke/tear gas filled room with 200(?) people running around, how much damage could be inflicted with your favorite knife?

 

[jnphares]

This incident was a tragedy, and I don't have a real answer. However, I'd like to note a couple things:

I saw this statement in a Reuters news post on Yahoo news, "Holmes, a graduate student who authorities said had his hair dyed red and called himself 'the Joker' in a reference to Batman's comic-book nemesis, was due to make an initial court appearance on Monday." This guy was obviously deranged, and trying to live out a fantasy. I enjoy playing immersive video games, and watching movies with amazing special-effects that you feel like you're part of the action. However, it seems that some people can break from reality, and it's probably related to a number of psychological factors, including how much stress they're under. We have some guidelines and laws to protect children from buying games or movie tickets based on ratings -- I'm not prepared to discuss enforcement, but they're in place. I think that it's obvious that children aren't the only people susceptible to losing touch with reality based on what they watch, play or hear. I'll even take this a step further and mention reporting and rhetoric, primarily political, that's more entertainment than factual and intended to prompt people act in a certain way -- they might say just to vote or contribute to candidates, but some statements have been inflammatory enough to incite more violent acts by some people. Culturally, I believe that Americans are less polite/civil and much more accustomed to (virtual) violence than we have been in the past. Honestly, I think that this sort of violence is more of a First Amendment issue than a Second Amendment one.

Now to the Second Amendment, and here's where I'm going to sound crazy to some folks. The Second Amendment isn't about protecting your right to hunt or about protecting your home from burglars. The context under which the constitution was written was that local bands of civilians had banded together to "throw off the yoke of tyranny." The Second Amendment is about preserving that capability -- it's about citizens having access to weapons that allow them to stand against troops of an oppressive government. Writings from the time such as Jefferson's famous, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure," indicate that they expected American government to be less stable than it has been. Still, while federal and state laws have severely infringed upon the type of arms available to people, in my mind unconstitutionally, semi-auto "assault rifles" are in actuality the lower end of exactly what the Second Amendment is about.

As I said, I don't have the answer. I believe that people have the constitutional right to own much more destructive weapons than they're legally allowed to. People have circumvented the Second Amendment in the name of preserving civil order. I also believe that some people shouldn't play violent games or watch violent movies, just like some people can't drink or gamble without destroying their lives and the lives of those around them. What I don't know is if there's anyway to protect against that without implementing the kind of pre-1970s censoring that used to exist. If that's the case, will people be willing to sacrifice that much more liberty for security?

 

[retrocon]

This is very sad for their families, who will be in our prayers.

But this is also very sad for society.

Today, we excuse or avoid the signs of mental illness on the grounds of political correctness (Laughner was the prime example, the Columbine killers were being treated with serotonin inhibitors. i will not be surprised to see plenty of warning signs attributed to this psycho).

No, any infringement on the rights of the sane and law abiding to own the tools of self protection only ensures that the victim counts will be higher in the future. But for each incident like this, there are many instances of people refusing to be victims.

I, for one, will always have to make the choice when i see that "No Weapons Allowed" sign. Do i want to be a potential victim? It's really that simple.

Again, with a focus on the victims here, we cannot presume someone to be insane, we cannot help them if those around him don't take the first steps. So when prevention is not an option, intervention is all that is left. We owe, if not to society, at least to our families, to be willing sheepdogs. To keep vigil when others won't -- whether they want us to, or not.

There will always be wolves (mentally ill or otherwise), there will always be sheep, but if we don't protect our rights, there will not always be sheepdogs.

 

[retrocon]

And, the liberal and media elites should ask their armed bodyguards what the difference is between a clip and a magazine. Perhaps their hypocrisy does not have to show through their ignorance.

 

[wolfdad]

Very upsetting- imagine being in the theatre when this happened- how crazy it would be to witness what was going on and realizing sometime after it started that it was a real attack..... and all those children. Just horrible. Pure evil. Prayers out to the families of those injured and lost.

yes, the anti gunners are jumping all over this one quick with one sided arguments- no good... let's talk about that on another day here soon when things are a little more settled- we will all have plenty to say, I'm sure.

 

[RussMo]

This incident was a tragedy, and I don't have a real answer. However, I'd like to note a couple things:

I saw this statement in a Reuters news post on Yahoo news, "Holmes, a graduate student who authorities said had his hair dyed red and called himself 'the Joker' in a reference to Batman's comic-book nemesis, was due to make an initial court appearance on Monday." This guy was obviously deranged, and trying to live out a fantasy. I enjoy playing immersive video games, and watching movies with amazing special-effects that you feel like you're part of the action. However, it seems that some people can break from reality, and it's probably related to a number of psychological factors, including how much stress they're under. We have some guidelines and laws to protect children from buying games or movie tickets based on ratings -- I'm not prepared to discuss enforcement, but they're in place. I think that it's obvious that children aren't the only people susceptible to losing touch with reality based on what they watch, play or hear. I'll even take this a step further and mention reporting and rhetoric, primarily political, that's more entertainment than factual and intended to prompt people act in a certain way -- they might say just to vote or contribute to candidates, but some statements have been inflammatory enough to incite more violent acts by some people. Culturally, I believe that Americans are less polite/civil and much more accustomed to (virtual) violence than we have been in the past. Honestly, I think that this sort of violence is more of a First Amendment issue than a Second Amendment one.

Now to the Second Amendment, and here's where I'm going to sound crazy to some folks. The Second Amendment isn't about protecting your right to hunt or about protecting your home from burglars. The context under which the constitution was written was that local bands of civilians had banded together to "throw off the yoke of tyranny." The Second Amendment is about preserving that capability -- it's about citizens having access to weapons that allow them to stand against troops of an oppressive government. Writings from the time such as Jefferson's famous, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure," indicate that they expected American government to be less stable than it has been. Still, while federal and state laws have severely infringed upon the type of arms available to people, in my mind unconstitutionally, semi-auto "assault rifles" are in actuality the lower end of exactly what the Second Amendment is about.

As I said, I don't have the answer. I believe that people have the constitutional right to own much more destructive weapons than they're legally allowed to. People have circumvented the Second Amendment in the name of preserving civil order. I also believe that some people shouldn't play violent games or watch violent movies, just like some people can't drink or gamble without destroying their lives and the lives of those around them. What I don't know is if there's anyway to protect against that without implementing the kind of pre-1970s censoring that used to exist. If that's the case, will people be willing to sacrifice that much more liberty for security?

-------
Well Said Brother!!! I have been saying this for years:thumbup:

 

[lozdesign7]

I was very sorry to hear about this horrific crime.

My thoughts and prayers go out to everyone who is effected.

Lawrie.

 

[shunsui]

I suspect the guy was on some kind of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors(SSRIs).

Think they'll let us know ?

 

[RedbeAR15]

I suspect the guy was on some kind of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors(SSRIs).

Think they'll let us know ?

Or maybe should have been?

 

[Gravelface]

There is no stopping stupid. Only thing to do is deal with it after they are caught with a heavy dose of lead poisoning.

 

[shunsui]

Or maybe should have been?

Yeah, I probably phrased that wrong. I think most of these guys go hyper violent when they go off their meds suddenly without a gradual decline in the dosage. They've been bitching about the stuff for twenty years or so.

 

[monsterdog]

I suspect the guy was on some kind of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors(SSRIs).

Think they'll let us know ?

Nah, more votes and palmgreasing will be achieved by avoiding casting blame on big pharmaceutical companies :foot:

If he was on some kind of serious meds for mental health, wouldn't this have been spotted when his instant check was done? I thought they put something like that in the system after the other sicko went nuts at virginia tech?

 

[BePrepared]

No, the only prohibition on owning a firearm for mental health is commitment.

Many people who are generally stable are treated for one type of mental illness or another.

 

[BePrepared]

There is no stopping stupid. Only thing to do is deal with it after they are caught with a heavy dose of lead poisoning.

Doesn't have the be a heavy dose... properly administered, a 180 grain dose is sufficient to accomplish the needed cure.

 

[Gravelface]

Heavy dose for effect.........

I hate for him get only one shot in the proper place and not feel "some" of the physical pain he put so many through...........

I say start on his toes and finger tips, working slowly towards center mass.

 

[BePrepared]

but wouldn't that be imminently more satisfying if one were to use, say, a small blowtorch rather than "lead poisoning" and perhaps spread the treatment out over a period of days or weeks?

It seems than an extended treatment period might produce a more positive long term prognosis... at least for those who matter... the victims

 

[Gravelface]

This forum needs a "like" button!!!!:thumbup::thumbup:

 

[retrocon]

I would suggest death by 1000 cuts, in light of this forum.

Heavy dose for effect.........

I hate for him get only one shot in the proper place and not feel "some" of the physical pain he put so many through...........

I say start on his toes and finger tips, working slowly towards center mass.

 

[Bowman1911]

So the theater has a no concealled carry clause. Where's the armed security they're supposed to supply?

 

[Gravelface]

So the theater has a no concealled carry clause. Where's the armed security they're supposed to supply?

Is that their policy?