1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Police: 13 dead; 58 injured in Colorado theater shooting

Discussion in 'The OT' started by Unknown, Jul 20, 2012.

  1. SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,259
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    Not afraid of, just unwilling to pay for. Most of the state run facilities were shut down in the 80s and 90s for budget reasons.

    That said, there has been nothing published about this guy's past that would have even gotten him evaluated, let alone committed.
     
  2. trh

    trh This Space for Sale

    5,449
    242
    Nov 2, 2007
    NE FL
    And a psychiatrist who consults for FOX News said this:

    I agree. We don't know all the details yet, but in almost all the past shootings like this, there were signs but no one did anything. But putting it together isn't going to be easy.
     
  3. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,572
    373
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Forgive me, but that's an odd bit of sentiment isn't it? The notion that trying to protect people will just get those people killed? Isn't that to some degree what our law enforcement, security, and military sign up for?

    I'm not wishing it on them... don't misunderstand me... but saying that protecting Joe citizen will result in those protectors being killed... I'm not sure what that is saying.

    Couldn't you say the same about law enforcement and military in general and not specifically about this kind of incident?

    True... and that's why I'm not in favor of knee-jerk reactions. What I am in favor of is people sitting down and talking and thinking. This guy planned for 2 months for this attack. Wouldn't it be nice if the good guys put that kind of planning into trying to deter/prevent such things?

    Yes. This wasn't the first and will not be the last crazy killer we will have to deal with... possibly not even before the end of the year, sadly... but that doesn't mean we can think about what might possibly help.

    Armored trucks still get robbed, for example, but they still use armored trucks. Once someone breached an armored truck the security companies didn't say "well, let's just use a pickup because the armor isn't working anyway"... the armored truck still deters more attacks even if it doesn't stop 100% of them.

    Banks still get robbed, people still get killed, home invasions, etc. etc. but prudent people get together and think of ways to protect or prevent these things. As long as the reactions are thought-out, not knee-jerk, I think honest attempts to help things along are of value.

    I notice people were quick to jump on my suggestions for hiring security guards... they can't watch all the doors, too many guards, too expensive, etc. But I didn't hear anybody put down the idea of installing security cameras at the exits and having a guard or two in a security room to watch those cameras. That would be an effective and cheap early warning system for the kind of thing that happened last week.

    Someone watching the cameras would have seen suspicious behavior of propping the door open... then had a reason to watch that guy... we'll never know if it could have been stopped but it certainly would have been more difficult.

    I agree... though, to be fair... the same people who say to me that "this couldn't have been predicted" and "you can't watch everyone" applies to mental health. If people think you can't watch a guy based on internet purchases of weaponry... how are you going to watch everyone who says/does something you think might mean they have a mental health issue?

    Given the number of people in this country now on prescription anti-depressants... wouldn't that technically mean we might have to watch half or more of the country for danger signs?
     
  4. runner861

    runner861 Icon

    859
    0
    Mar 20, 2010
    Mental health is always an issue to look at, but it is very difficult to involuntarily commit someone. And a high-performing, law-abiding citizen will never be involuntarily committed. And that is exactly what this guy was, until a week ago.
     
  5. BattleScott

    BattleScott Hall Of Fame

    2,353
    7
    Aug 28, 2006
    What justifiable reason does a person need either of these?

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  6. Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    246
    Nov 15, 2005
    "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana. I would rather not be so doomed.

    My personal view is that the amendment should also apply to ALL military grade weapons potentially used by a militia. Yes, I am fully aware of the potential consequences (on both sides of this issue.)

    Peace,
    Tom
     
  7. Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    246
    Nov 15, 2005
    Measured how?
     
  8. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,299
    913
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    I'm suspicious of anyone who promotes the "right to bear arms" without limits.

    It can be fun to second guess the framers and see if they really meant to "protect" the ownership of the kind of weaponry that passes as a "gun" in this century. Does the "right to bear arms" end with guns? How about explosives? Those could have been used as weapons by early Americans defending their country. If there are no limits then can you be sure they didn't include the unthought of at that time thermonuclear weapons when they wrote arms? It is a weapon used by Americans to defend their country.

    If you are willing to accept there should be limits then it is just haggling over where to draw the line. Somewhere between where people can blow off steam by blowing something to bits with a gun and where one puts a weapon in the hands of a person who will kill themselves or others. If you're not willing to accept there should be limits then I better buy some guns to protect myself from you! :eek2:
     
  9. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,572
    373
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Not sure what your question here is? I'm not being snide, I really don't understand based on what you quoted from my post.
     
  10. Christopher Gould

    Christopher Gould Icon

    991
    16
    Jan 14, 2007
    I dont believe there are any limits to what you can own. Its something like a class III licence. Alot of paper work and money and you can get want.
     
  11. Christopher Gould

    Christopher Gould Icon

    991
    16
    Jan 14, 2007
    I like to think you for youe level headed thinking.
     
  12. Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    246
    Nov 15, 2005
    Hokay, I was being slightly, dramatically terse. And I don't think of you as snide, so I'm glad you confirmed it. Thank you.

    What I was asking is how would anyone but the owner know how many of the 6k rounds had been fired? How would it be measured or calculated?

    I've lived in 4 parts of the country where people can drive a short distance to find very open land and just start shooting. (Wisconsin, Indiana, Arizona, and now Utah.) Sure, in the big cities you might have to drive 10-20 miles farther, but even in California, I suspect I could have found people who can quickly get to places they can shoot all they want without a problem. Ranches and farms are usually good places, or mountain valleys. Good O'l boys and now girls can just hop to a friends house and fire away all weekend. Or still go "hunting at the dump." :)

    So that is why the guns and ammo do not begin to raise a red flag for me. For several people I know, that is just a good time in a couple of weekends. Or a heck of a sale on ammo (and I know someone who has done that) which might take a few years to work down in target practice. No biggie at all.

    Peace,
    Tom
     
  13. Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    246
    Nov 15, 2005
    Again, I remember several times in history when the government forgot we are the masters. They serve us. Or times when another government forget we are the masters of our land and so our government needed us to for a well ordered militia.

    So if we are to protect our rights, one of those rights needs to allow us to have the same technology a military force would have. We can't stop at stone knives and bear skins when the military is using phasers. We need to be just as well armed.

    Now, I have (literally in the past 24 hours) considered one potentially reasonable way to draw the line. A militia does not need nuclear weapons (a problem I've struggled to reconcile previously.) Since the framers did define the militia as the rationale, I could consider the limits worked around what an infantryman might reasonably need. Which would include hand held bombs but not artillery. I'm intrigued by this notion to balance rights.

    As for guns, you don't need to fear me in particular. I have one pellet gun and one shotgun that only holds 5 rounds--and the pump mechanism pops its handle after a couple of uses. I'm not likely to do anything beyond make everyone laugh in a few seconds. :)

    I really, really like the notions that by caring for one another by educating ourselves as to the warning signs, getting treatment for thems who need it, and otherwise reduce the likelihood of someone going postal rather than trying to stop someone who has gone postal.

    Peace,
    Tom
     
  14. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,572
    373
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Thanks for the extra clarity :)

    This gets back to my original notion of this guy should have made a watch list by his initial actions, which then would have led to someone observing that he had not been going to a firing range or hunting.

    Admittedly, IF no one thought to question those suddenly different (for him) online purchases, then you're right... there would be no way to know.

    Also someone could steal their guns and ammo and no way to track that either... so there are always ways around the rules... but, and maybe this is a little big-brother-ish for some... but I've always thought that there should be mandatory gun training before you get a permit.

    Of course people can still cheat and steal... but anyone who goes the gun permit route, if they had to take a gun safety course and demonstrate proficiency with their permitted weapons on a firing range... it would not only help those responsible gun owners BUT also would give authorities a chance to observe demeanor of people in the training in case they say/do anything that seems out of sorts.

    I've mentioned this in other gun threads.. but probably not here in this one.

    Turns out I don't live too far away either... There are some day cares, an elementary school, and some other stuff near me... but also some large tracts of land... and apparently it is perfectly legal to go shooting or hunting on that land IF you get permission from the land-owner.

    This came up not too long ago when gunfire was heard, someone called the police, and they were looking for a shooter and locking down the schools and stuff. During the search, they were noting that it could have been someone legally shooting... and the topic of "is that safe" came up since your bullet doesn't observe land boundaries!
     
  15. Shades228

    Shades228 DaBears

    6,081
    45
    Mar 18, 2008
    There are class III states however that is not the highest class you can get. For instance a .50 cal machine gun is a class III such as the browning m2 which you can get for around 20k or so. A Boys anti tank rifle is a .55 cal and takes a different class altogether unless it's been modified.


    Once you get into what can be considered cannons or artillery type there are different classifications.

    Browning m2:
    [​IMG]
    Boys Anti Tank Rifle:
    [​IMG]

    The real key to gun control would be to not worry about costs associated with it and setup a system that does real time tracking of serial numbers and have enough agents per capita to investigate stores and distributors easily. Gun registration, sales, and transfer should be done 100% electronically and require photograph/notarized documentation to be scanned immediately. Any crime involving a fire arm should have an automatic doubling of sentence time without the ability to parole and in the case of an illegal firearm it should be triple. The sale of firearms done illegally should be 25 years fixed without parole per instance.

    There will always be criminals but if enforcement was good enough and the penalties were steep enough it would stop the average person from looking the other way in deals.
     
  16. MysteryMan

    MysteryMan Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    8,316
    458
    May 17, 2010
    USA
    Limits? That's just a clever way of getting in the back door what you can't get in the front door. The anti gun mucky mucks are people who are totally against the 2nd Amendment and do their best to infringe our right to keep and bear arms. They publicly state they are not against gun ownership and only want to place limits on what we can purchase and own all in the name of public safety and crime prevention. In the seventies they used the phrase "Saturday Night Special" to restiict handgun sales and ownership. A Saturday Night Special is a cheaply made, low cost, and easily concealed handgun that the media labled as the criminal's favorite. Take a look at what got placed on their list as Saturday Night Specials. Handguns with six inch barrels manufactured by companies like Browning, Colt, Smith and Wesson, ect. Doesn't quite fit their description of cheaply made, low cost and easily concealed. They've used the same tactics and trickery with the sale of ammunition. They publicly stated they are not against hunting and target shooting but again, take a look at what got placed on their list of rifles and shotguns that should be banned from the public. Fortunately American's have wised up and are no longer buying into the anti gunners BS. Yesterday's statements by President Obama and other political leaders confirms they've taken notice of this.
     
  17. runner861

    runner861 Icon

    859
    0
    Mar 20, 2010
    You make some very good points. But it is unlikely Congress will pass such a law. As far as the crimes and sentencing enhancements you are talking about, some similar laws are on the books in California and used regularly. However, when we are dealing with a prosecution that means that a crime has been committed and guilt must be proven. So you already have an injured or dead victim, and sometimes proof is quite difficult.
     
  18. SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,259
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    Where will it end? When will the NRA wake up and realize they are not acting in the best interests of the public?

    http://www.indystar.com/article/201...ect-flak-suit-heavily-armed-?odyssey=nav|head
     
  19. RunnerFL

    RunnerFL Well-Known Member

    17,054
    311
    Jan 4, 2006
    Maybe when the Anti-Gun people realize that someone who wants a gun is going to get a gun regardless of whatever law may or may not be in place.

    Shootings happen daily around our country unfortunately and guess who does the shootings? Criminals, not law abiding citizens.

    In fact I'm listening to the Sheriff in my area right now on my scanner and they are looking for a shooter not far from me.
     
  20. BattleScott

    BattleScott Hall Of Fame

    2,353
    7
    Aug 28, 2006

Share This Page