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. runner861

    runner861 Icon

    859
    0
    Mar 20, 2010
    I read posts here stating that perhaps there should be security guards at movie theaters, or perhaps the movie company should have thought about a better premiere time, or why didn't his purchase of weapons and ammunition trigger some red flags, or why wasn't someone else packing heat in the theater.

    Some theaters have security guards, some don't. Some theaters can't afford them. But even if we had security guards at theaters, could a security guard have stopped this? And what is the next venue where we need security guards? Ice cream shops? Grocery stores? The doctor's office? This event can occur anywhere.

    As far as premiere time, the movie company is going to have the premiere at the time when they think they can garner the most viewers and publicity. That is American free speech and capitalism at work. There is no way they could have anticipated this event.

    As far as the purchase of weapons and ammunition in large quantities, why would that trigger any red flags? This is our American 2nd Amendment at work. There is no legislation to track ammunition purchases at the federal level, and none at the state level of which I am aware. The federal government does not track gun purchases once the purchase is cleared, and not all purchases are even cleared. Private sales are not all cleared by the federal government. The gun is not required to be registered at the federal level, although I am not sure if Colorado has a registration requirement. In any event, registration would make no difference. That only helps track the gun after a crime is committed.

    If someone else had been packing heat in the theater, that person would have been able to do nothing. That person would not even get a shot off in a darkened theater with tear gas and facing someone with an assault weapon.

    There is no effective way to halt all random acts of violence. Random acts of violence will continue to happen from time to time, and when they do people get up in arms for a day or two, then everyone's life goes back to normal--except the lives of those who were killed, and their family members. We have freedoms in America--there are up and down sides to the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, and the rest of our constitution.
     
  2. armophob

    armophob Difficulty Concen........

    7,393
    65
    Nov 13, 2006
    Fort Pierce, FL
    In my new world order this guy would have been paid well for his family's safety and relocation to make this happen.
    This is gold for the movie company
     
  3. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,611
    382
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Why can't they afford them? A theater that can't afford a security guard must not be making much money and is probably about to go out of business anyway.

    Absolutely. This guy would have been stopped by a security guard on the exits.

    The shooter bought a ticket... propped the exit door open and then came back inside with his weapons. A security guard on the exit would have asked "what are you doing"... he absolutely would not have been able to go out and pick up a bag of weapons and gear up and come back unnoticed if there was a guard on the door.

    Sad, but IF these events start happening at more places... then, yes, we need more security. Would you rather have security or random violence?

    IF you don't even try to stop these things, then they will absolutely happen. IF, however, you try and do some pre-emptive things... then at least some of these kinds of events will be prevented.

    My questioning of the midnight showing was independent of the tragedy. I just noticed people questioning parents having a young child and saying they were "risking their kids' life"... My point was that IF you are questioning parents about this random act of violence, then it would make more sense to question why there was a midnight movie opening in the first place.

    That said... I stand by my assertion that midnight movie premieres are not the wisest of things... bringing a bunch of people together to get them all amped up and then let them out at 2am... that seems like asking for something to happen. Not this shooting.. but something. Almost nothing letting people out at 2am leads to good things.

    Why shouldn't it?

    Yes, he could be doing legal things... but consider... given this age of violence, I would expect law enforcement to be watching the internet for these kinds of transactions. IF they see lots of ammo going to a private citizen suddenly over a couple of months, they absolutely should be curious.

    IF they watch the kid and find he is going target shooting at a range and burning through those bullets...then leave him alone. But if he is stockpiling weapons and explosives and bullets suddenly over a short period... I think he should be watched.

    No, it isn't. We aren't talking about a guy who bought a gun... or a gun collector who bought several guns for display... or a hunter or target shooter who bought weapons and used them.

    We're talking about a guy buying an arsenal. You don't do that unless there's something else going on in your head.

    They are supposed to be... That's what that whole Patriot Act was supposed to help them do to catch terrorists. I don't like all the intrusions of privacy going on... but IF the government is monitoring internet traffic and looking for terrorist buzzwords and potential transactions... then I damn well expect them to be looking at someone like this too. IF they are intruding on privacy and not even catching a guy like this before he kills innocent people... then what's the point of the monitoring?

    He bought guns locally... apparently not from a private citizen. He bought his ammunition in bulk on the internet as well as the riot gear. I'm sorry, but there are certain things you or I could post on the internet that would have the men in black at our door and helicopters circling overhead... knowing that, I'm extremely disappointed that this guy hadn't made a watch list with his activity.

    Consider... in an unrelated thread... Fred Willard was caught pleasuring himself in an adult theater... an adult theater that apparently gets multiple police raids a day, and per week... but this guy buys guns, explosives, ammo, and riot gear online... and he doesn't trigger any investigation until he kills people?

    Sorry... but that's a flaw in our prevention system. He could just as well have been a terrorist and he could have done far worse OR there could have been several doing the same thing in a concerted effort at multiple locations. IF we can't stop that, then our crime prevention forces really aren't good for much and the whole lot should be replaced. Seriously.

    All true... but just because you can't prevent them ALL doesn't mean you shouldn't try to prevent SOME.

    I mean, if you're arguing we shouldn't even try... then why do we even have a police force on duty all the time? Why don't the police just work like the national guard... they are off-duty until a crime happens, then they get called up.

    So, no... you can't stop all random acts of violence... but you can stop some. Guards at the exits would have stopped this one. Someone watching his online transactions might have stopped it too.

    No, I don't want our government snooping and watching me... but, I figure they already are... Make a viable thread on a public forum to national security and see if people don't show up to talk to you. That's all I'm saying... somebody somewhere should have seen these transactions online and that filter that is supposed to be looking for suspicious terrorist activity should have kicked this kid's name into a "watch him" folder... I'm guessing that didn't happen.
     
  4. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,611
    382
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    I really want to believe I'm misreading your post here. I don't think I am, but I really hope I am.
     
  5. James Long

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

    45,947
    1,024
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    I have not been to a midnight premere ... but I have been to first night showings where people show up in costume and the crowd is a lot more interactive than what one may want from a theater audience. It is a shared experience.

    If you want to sit down with a quiet audience and enjoy a film a midnight or other premier showing probably isn't for you. If you want to have a shared experience with fans then the first showing is the place you want to be.

    As far as what the audience does at 2am (closer to 3am for a 165 minute film like The Dark Knight Rises) when the movie ends? It is a bit late for Taco Bell so if the crowd goes anywhere it will be to Steak 'n' Shake or Denny's. Most likely they'll just go home and catch a little sleep before waking up the next day and talking with their friends --- spoiler alert! I saw the movie last night. (I know something you don't know!) Those that saw the movie together talk about it until someone who hasn't seen it wanders by and the conversation quiets down until the coast is clear.

    In general the midnight showings are a lot of fun ... and if I were half my age (or less) I'd probably go to them myself but I have grown old. ;)
     
  6. Lord Vader

    Lord Vader Supreme Member DBSTalk Club

    8,741
    42
    Sep 20, 2004
    Galactic Empire
    Then perhaps you'd like to live in Illinois, where even with years/decades of appeals, some 17 or more innocent men were sentenced to death. Thankfully, their convictions were eventually overturned--most 10, 20 years or more after their original convictions--and they were freed. Had their appeal time been limited, these 17 innocent men would now be dead at the hands of the state, a state whose Death Penalty was so corrupt, so bad, that it caused this pro-capital punishment individual to now oppose it solely because we cannot take the chance that an innocent person be executed.
     
  7. Lord Vader

    Lord Vader Supreme Member DBSTalk Club

    8,741
    42
    Sep 20, 2004
    Galactic Empire
    A.) It is not a "superhero movie." The Dark Knight is far darker, far more foreboding, than Superman, Spider-Man, The Avengers, or any other such movie. It is NOT appropriate for a 3-month-old or 6-year-old child. Every child expert so far interviewed has said the same thing. Even the MPAA rated this PG13 for a reason.

    B.) The beating analogy was quite accurate. Each of us has a duty, a responsibility, to become involved when a child is endangered by his parent(s) or guardian(s). Many states even require this by law for many people (educators, counselors, etc.). Obviously, you believe such laws are wrong and such people should butt out. How irresponsible and abhorrent.

    C.) There is absolutely endangerment when taking a child to a movie that goes beyond scaring them. When a movie's violent or dark undertone gives a child nightmares or causes a child to become anesthetized to what is wrong or unacceptable, this child has suffered because of his/her parents irresponsibility and gross negligence.
     
  8. armophob

    armophob Difficulty Concen........

    7,393
    65
    Nov 13, 2006
    Fort Pierce, FL
    No, I think you understand my comment. But we have learned new info since and I beg off
     
  9. James Long

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

    45,947
    1,024
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Per the MPAA, "Parents Strongly Cautioned. Some Material May Be Inappropriate For Children Under 13."

    There is no MPAA age restrictions on movies less than the NC-17 rating ... "R" requires an accompanying parent or adult guardian, "PG-13" and "PG" caution parents but do not restrict attendance. (Some theaters may have their own rules independent of the MPAA.)

    And that has happened? Proof? A case of where this particular film has caused the harm you claim?

    I have already said that I would not have made the same choice as these particular parents ... but I will not demonize them. Especially when the children were sleeping through the presentation.
     
  10. Lord Vader

    Lord Vader Supreme Member DBSTalk Club

    8,741
    42
    Sep 20, 2004
    Galactic Empire
    Their 6-year-old wasn't sleeping according to the mother's account of what happened. I won't "demonize" them, but I'll surely criticize them for what many have called bad and irresponsible parenting.

    Oh, ABC News's Dr. Richard Besser made a general comment that this type of movie "isn't one young kids should be exposed to" when he was asked if movies like this cause people to turn violent. (He didn't subscribe to that belief, BTW.)
     
  11. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,611
    382
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    I've said it before, though maybe not in this forum... but you know what gave me nightmares as a kid?

    Not scary movies...

    I had nightmares after watching those G-rated nature programs that showed animals tracking and killing and eating other animals. You know, those things that people encourage you to take your kids too!

    The point here is... declaring taking a child to a PG-13 as equivalent to abuse is way to general of an assertion that you just can't make without knowing that child. Now IF you know the child and you know he/she can't handle that kind of movie THEN I'd agree with you, it is tantamount to child abuse to take a kid you know is scared of such things to such a movie.

    But if you don't know because your kid has never seen such a movie OR you do know that your kid is fine... then it's no big deal. This could have been a Disney movie that a gunman showed up to kill people... and then you wouldn't have an argument about the kids being in the movie. So I really think it has little to do with anything.
     
  12. Lord Vader

    Lord Vader Supreme Member DBSTalk Club

    8,741
    42
    Sep 20, 2004
    Galactic Empire
    There's a reason 6-year-olds--NO 6-year-old--should ever be subjected to such kinds of macabre and violent stuff. 12? 13? 16? or so? Perhaps, but as numerous experts on the various news outlets were explaining, NO child that young should be exposed to that kind of violence, whether it's in the reporting of the massacre or whether it's a fictional movie.

    Let's just hope those 2 dimwitted parents learned from their near deadly mistake.
     
  13. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,611
    382
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Do those "experts" have kids? What do they think of the violence in PG or G rated movies? What about those nature programs I mentioned?

    No "expert" worth his (or her) salt can make such generic statements definitively about ANY child that they have not talked to... there's just no way to assert such things about all people.

    Frankly, I would argue that there are many adults over 21 not mature enough to handle the content of these movies and that to sell them a ticket and allow entry is irresponsible... but I can't make that assertion against all 21+ year olds since I don't know them all.

    Neither can I similarly make the assertion that a 6 year-old shouldn't be there. You can't either... and neither can those "experts" who have no basis on which to make their assertion about that particular child.

    And now you're connecting two things that have no connection. Would you make the same statement if instead of a movie, those same parents had their kid with them to get late night groceries because they needed food? And a burglar comes in and shoots up the store?

    Come on now... there's ZERO connection to the "risk" taken by those parents in this specific scenario. In order to draw that conclusion you have to assert that the parents should have expected physical danger from going to a movie with their kids.

    If you want to debate whether kids should be at the movie, fine... I think you're wrong, but at least that's your opinion vs mine... but there's no way to put guilt on the parents for this crazy gunman who could just have easily been at a matinee or a kids' movie or at a store or driving down the road when he snapped.

    What are they supposed to "learn" from their "mistake"? Never take your kids outside because someone might shoot them? Except, with home invasions seemingly on the rise... you can't leave your kids at home either, can you take that risk? What if you go out and leave your kids home with the sitter and your home is invaded? Would you expect them to "learn a lesson" there too?
     
  14. Lord Vader

    Lord Vader Supreme Member DBSTalk Club

    8,741
    42
    Sep 20, 2004
    Galactic Empire
    They have all the basis in the word because they're pediatricians, child psychologists, doctors, and others with the knowledge & experience to hold such professional opinions.

    Oh, and yes, many of them do, in fact, have children, according to their own admissions.
     
  15. djlong

    djlong Hall Of Fame

    4,343
    57
    Jul 8, 2002
    New Hampshire
    Stewart - how many security guards do you think a theater needs?

    The name of the theater was the Aurora 16. That means 16 theaters plus other entrances and exits (usually 2 emergency exits per theater).

    You can't cover all the exits. Add to that the general uselessness of security guards in a situation like that. I mean, you really think that *mall cops* are going to stop a guy like this?

    I work on an Air Force base that has security guards - with automatic weapons. THEY certainly make me feel safe.
     
  16. RasputinAXP

    RasputinAXP Kwisatz Haderach of Cordcuttery

    3,145
    12
    Jan 23, 2008
    Because of what happened meaning the shooting, not Batman beating up Bane. This is getting ridiculous.
     
  17. James Long

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

    45,947
    1,024
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Yep. Lets hope that people don't take children to "Congress on Your Corner" style political events at 10am in a Safeway parking lot. Nine year old Christina-Taylor Green could be alive today if she had not been there.

    And how DARE those parents send their children to Columbine High School!
    And how DARE those parents take their children to San Ysidro's McDonalds where five under 18 (including an 8 month old) were killed!

    :rolleyes:
     
  18. dpeters11

    dpeters11 Hall Of Fame

    16,340
    503
    May 30, 2007
    Cincinnati
    But thy can't make blanket statements about all children, maybe the average.
     
  19. MysteryMan

    MysteryMan Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    8,522
    533
    May 17, 2010
    USA
    Well that's better than taking children of that age to a midnight showing of a movie that has a running time of 164 minutes. Do the math. They wouldn't have left the theater until 02:45am and that's assuming the movie started on time. :rolleyes:
     
  20. Lord Vader

    Lord Vader Supreme Member DBSTalk Club

    8,741
    42
    Sep 20, 2004
    Galactic Empire
    Exactly. Of all James's aforementioned venues/scenarios, the movie theater midnight showing of a violent, dark movie was the wholly inappropriate one.
     

Share This Page