Another shooting tragedy...

[diamondseeker2006]

Just wanted to affirm that I certainly agree that the overwhelming majority of people with mental illness are not dangerous or capable of such a heinous crime. I do not think a person who does something like this is normal mentally, however. I am sure we'll hear plenty of "experts" speculating on what his mental state was over the next few months until a trial is held.

Just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting that the killer did this because of watching too much violence, I was just suggesting that it isn't healthy for young children to watch a lot of violence (and that was one reason I was against them being at the movie aside from it being midnight). And I believe statistics will show a much greater amount of violence with youth in this country today versus in the past. Many causes, certainly, but I believe one cause of violence with youth is the amount they are exposed to in the home and on TV and with violent video games. I know my experiences are not equal to a scientific study, but teaching in public schools for many years, I have seen a lot of evidence.

 

[lyra]

Kids under 13 should not be at a midnight screening of a PG-13 movie full of violence, period. I cannot fathom bringing a 4 month old--surely the sound levels alone might be harmful. No, it's not the victim's faults that they were victims. No one ever knows when they might be in the middle of a crazy, dangerous situation.

I'm Canadian, and yes, I do take exception to American gun laws--from a distance. The fact that someone can LEGALLY purchase a semi-automatic assault rifle with 100 shot mags is CRAZY. Sure, you have the right to defend yourself. But in what scenario does any civilian need that much defence?? The other issue is the body armor. He could have taken out all the first responders with his armor and weapons--they were as good or better than what the police had. Again, that is CRAZY.

Is he mentally ill. I don't know. Anyone can have a psychotic break I suppose. But lets not villainize all mentaly ill people. This guy was I'm sure a very brilliant person. Brilliant people can devise brilliantly awful crimes, that's for sure. This whole thing sickens me. I just can't imagine the impact on all these families. It's too terrible. And it was so easy to do apparently.

 

[DiamondBrokersofFlorida]

It is something that you really never get over, having been in a massacre myself back in 1987 in Palm Bay. The guy that did the shooting was on death row for over 20 years and died of natural causes. So don't expect anything fast to happen in the incident in the movie theater. Just know that it can happen anywhere you are non matter where and be alert.

 

[random_thought]

It is something that you really never get over, having been in a massacre myself back in 1987 in Palm Bay. The guy that did the shooting was on death row for over 20 years and died of natural causes. So don't expect anything fast to happen in the incident in the movie theater. Just know that it can happen anywhere you are non matter where and be alert.

The shooter will be in court on Monday. I'd say that's pretty fast.


As someone who lives just 20 minutes from this theater, I can tell you the focus has not been the age of those who were in theater. The 3 month old has pulled through but the 6 year old has passed away. The father of the daughter is in custody for making mention of hopeful thoughts that someone else murders the killer. Also 2 deaths are of service men. I had chills from this all day, absolutely terrible.

As for the mayor of Aurora saying that Aurora is safe and nothing ever happens like this there. That is untrue. I'd say about 40% of the murders in the denver metro area occur in Aurora and I would never ever live there, this event affirms that.

While I agree that a 3 month old should not be a theater, it is not uncommon here to see children 6 and older at these midnight movies. I wouldn't take my own child to a movie that late, but I don't feel this is the time to be judging those who do.

The atmosphere is colorado is something I've never felt before. People are treating others with more kindness and compassion and just trying to be there for each other. I thank God that none of my friends were at that movie. The majority of people who have been listed among the dead are 27, the age range of myself and all of my friends. I hope this is killer is brought to justice quickly and swiftly and that the families and friends of the deceased are able to find some peace eventually. Colorado will never forget July 20th.

 

[movie zombie]

it is indeed sad.
regardless of age and that children should be at home, they weren't.
parents take their kids to events that are inappropriate all the time in this day and age....imo.
in this case, there was a big price paid for "wrong place, wrong time".
but the real problem wasn't that issue: it was a crazy person doing a crazy thing.
with deliberate forethought.
the parents are NOT to blame!

i still don't understand how he got in the emergency door.....unless he had tampered with it previously.
i didn't think it was that easy to enter one.

 

[random_thought]

it is indeed sad.
i still don't understand how he got in the emergency door.....unless he had tampered with it previously.
i didn't think it was that easy to enter one.

He bought a movie ticket and went in with everyone else. People saw him talking on his phone next to the door prior to the movie and then go out it. I assume he propped it open? He returned 20 minutes later in his black clothes they've been showing.

 

[lulu]

Kids under 13 should not be at a midnight screening of a PG-13 movie full of violence, period. I cannot fathom bringing a 4 month old--surely the sound levels alone might be harmful. No, it's not the victim's faults that they were victims. No one ever knows when they might be in the middle of a crazy, dangerous situation.

I'm Canadian, and yes, I do take exception to American gun laws--from a distance. The fact that someone can LEGALLY purchase a semi-automatic assault rifle with 100 shot mags is CRAZY. Sure, you have the right to defend yourself. But in what scenario does any civilian need that much defence?? The other issue is the body armor. He could have taken out all the first responders with his armor and weapons--they were as good or better than what the police had. Again, that is CRAZY.

Is he mentally ill. I don't know. Anyone can have a psychotic break I suppose. But lets not villainize all mentaly ill people. This guy was I'm sure a very brilliant person. Brilliant people can devise brilliantly awful crimes, that's for sure. This whole thing sickens me. I just can't imagine the impact on all these families. It's too terrible. And it was so easy to do apparently.

What type of weapon did the Eaton Centre shooter use last month? Ironically, one of the Colorado victims was also present at that shooting.

I think many people don't understand that a semiautomatic weapon fires one shot for every trigger pull. It is not a "machine gun".

 

[movie zombie]

thanks for the info.

note to self: if someone exits the theatre after it starts, get up and make sure the door is securely closed.
i sit up close and would notice and could and will do this.

or go to the lobby and report someone exited and i'm not sure the door is securely shut or not....in which case i expect the theatre manager to call LE, stop the movie, and clear the theatre until the situation is resolved.

seriously.

i love immersing myself into a good movie. i sit up front so that talkers and others don't distract me from the movie....and someone exiting an emergency exit would certainly be noticeable.

i hate it that another illusion of being in a safe place [a movie theatre] has been destroyed.
because in reality, the world never has been a safe place for anyone anywhere.
we as a society try to think that we have evolved and live in safety due to the rules we put into place.
but rules don't apply to bad guys and crazy people.
they don't live by the rules and prey on those of us that do.

 

[random_thought]

Kids under 13 should not be at a midnight screening of a PG-13 movie full of violence, period. I cannot fathom bringing a 4 month old--surely the sound levels alone might be harmful. No, it's not the victim's faults that they were victims. No one ever knows when they might be in the middle of a crazy, dangerous situation.

I'm Canadian, and yes, I do take exception to American gun laws--from a distance. The fact that someone can LEGALLY purchase a semi-automatic assault rifle with 100 shot mags is CRAZY. Sure, you have the right to defend yourself. But in what scenario does any civilian need that much defence?? The other issue is the body armor. He could have taken out all the first responders with his armor and weapons--they were as good or better than what the police had. Again, that is CRAZY.

Is he mentally ill. I don't know. Anyone can have a psychotic break I suppose. But lets not villainize all mentaly ill people. This guy was I'm sure a very brilliant person. Brilliant people can devise brilliantly awful crimes, that's for sure. This whole thing sickens me. I just can't imagine the impact on all these families. It's too terrible. And it was so easy to do apparently.

What type of weapon did the Eaton Centre shooter use last month? Ironically, one of the Colorado victims was also present at that shooting.

I think many people don't understand that a semiautomatic weapon fires one shot for every trigger pull. It is not a "machine gun".

I heard about that, I can't even imagine what was going through her head

 

[lyra]

Kids under 13 should not be at a midnight screening of a PG-13 movie full of violence, period. I cannot fathom bringing a 4 month old--surely the sound levels alone might be harmful. No, it's not the victim's faults that they were victims. No one ever knows when they might be in the middle of a crazy, dangerous situation.

I'm Canadian, and yes, I do take exception to American gun laws--from a distance. The fact that someone can LEGALLY purchase a semi-automatic assault rifle with 100 shot mags is CRAZY. Sure, you have the right to defend yourself. But in what scenario does any civilian need that much defence?? The other issue is the body armor. He could have taken out all the first responders with his armor and weapons--they were as good or better than what the police had. Again, that is CRAZY.

Is he mentally ill. I don't know. Anyone can have a psychotic break I suppose. But lets not villainize all mentaly ill people. This guy was I'm sure a very brilliant person. Brilliant people can devise brilliantly awful crimes, that's for sure. This whole thing sickens me. I just can't imagine the impact on all these families. It's too terrible. And it was so easy to do apparently.

What type of weapon did the Eaton Centre shooter use last month? Ironically, one of the Colorado victims was also present at that shooting.

I think many people don't understand that a semiautomatic weapon fires one shot for every trigger pull. It is not a "machine gun".

It's a semi-automatic that had 100 shot rounds. There's no reason in the world for a civilian to have that ability. That's 100 shots, one at a time with no reloading. The only time people had to escape was during reloading. I'm not asserting that people in the US should have their gun freedom taken away. I've been around guns all my life.

 

[Maria D]

thanks for the info.

note to self: if someone exits the theatre after it starts, get up and make sure the door is securely closed.
i sit up close and would notice and could and will do this.

or go to the lobby and report someone exited and i'm not sure the door is securely shut or not....in which case i expect the theatre manager to call LE, stop the movie, and clear the theatre until the situation is resolved.

seriously.

i love immersing myself into a good movie. i sit up front so that talkers and others don't distract me from the movie....and someone exiting an emergency exit would certainly be noticeable.

i hate it that another illusion of being in a safe place [a movie theatre] has been destroyed.
because in reality, the world never has been a safe place for anyone anywhere.
we as a society try to think that we have evolved and live in safety due to the rules we put into place.
but rules don't apply to bad guys and crazy people.
they don't live by the rules and prey on those of us that do.

One of the first reports that came out said that this did not appear to be an act of terrorism. I disagree. Since these people were certainly terrified and the crime has the effect of making us all wary in a movie theatre, I'd call this terrorism. There doesn't have to be a political agenda for a crime to be terrorism, imo. I think it's important to call it what it is because if there's any hope at all of preventing this sort of thing, we all have to adopt that "If you see something, say something" mentality that has worked a few times in NYC.

Lulu, I did not realize that semi-automatic meant one shot per trigger pull. What are these types of guns supposed to be used for? I know a lot of hunters but I have no idea what kind of weapons they use.

edited to add: I had not read Lyra's response about people only being able to escape between reloads. So again...what are these guns supposed to be used for? Is there any recreational purpose?

 

[Haven]

This is such a terrible tragedy. My heart aches for all of the victims, their families, and everyone whose lives will forever be affected by this.

Call us crazy, but my husband and I are never totally at ease in public. We always make sure to sit near exits, and we always check out our surroundings. Of course, this probably wouldn't make us any better off in a horrific situation like what happened in Aurora. But I do think it's important to be aware of your surroundings. Not paranoid, just aware.

I agree with you, Maria, that this was an act of terrorism. You make a very convincing argument for that.

This is one thing that scares me about working in schools. I had a high school student write a short story about how he brought a semi-automatic weapon to his creative writing class and killed everyone on the last day of the term. He submitted this story to me, his creative writing teacher, as his final project. I told the students I wouldn't be able to read the stories until after the last day of class, and that I'd send them my feedback via snail mail since it was summer school and we wouldn't see each other again until August. But as a rule I immediately thumb through every piece of writing my students submit to scan for any red flags. (It's not uncommon for students to reveal their depressive or suicidal thoughts via writing in English class, so I never wanted to miss that for even a day.) Anyway, the story was obviously about our specific class, and it was really, really terrifying. I submitted it and we called the police and the student was taken into custody and a lot of information about his home life came out after that. He had not yet obtained a gun, so it wasn't clear that his story detailed an actual plan. But that didn't matter. I was terrified, and it took a lot for me to get back to the place where I could go to work and not think about my students trying to kill each other or me.

 

[ksinger]

thanks for the info.

note to self: if someone exits the theatre after it starts, get up and make sure the door is securely closed.
i sit up close and would notice and could and will do this.

or go to the lobby and report someone exited and i'm not sure the door is securely shut or not....in which case i expect the theatre manager to call LE, stop the movie, and clear the theatre until the situation is resolved.

seriously.

i love immersing myself into a good movie. i sit up front so that talkers and others don't distract me from the movie....and someone exiting an emergency exit would certainly be noticeable.

i hate it that another illusion of being in a safe place [a movie theatre] has been destroyed.
because in reality, the world never has been a safe place for anyone anywhere.
we as a society try to think that we have evolved and live in safety due to the rules we put into place.
but rules don't apply to bad guys and crazy people.
they don't live by the rules and prey on those of us that do.

One of the first reports that came out said that this did not appear to be an act of terrorism. I disagree. Since these people were certainly terrified and the crime has the effect of making us all wary in a movie theatre, I'd call this terrorism. There doesn't have to be a political agenda for a crime to be terrorism, imo. I think it's important to call it what it is because if there's any hope at all of preventing this sort of thing, we all have to adopt that "If you see something, say something" mentality that has worked a few times in NYC.

Lulu, I did not realize that semi-automatic meant one shot per trigger pull. What are these types of guns supposed to be used for? I know a lot of hunters but I have no idea what kind of weapons they use.

edited to add: I had not read Lyra's response about people only being able to escape between reloads. So again...what are these guns supposed to be used for? Is there any recreational purpose?

Well, opinion in this case does not matter. The definition of "terrorISM" (as opposed to "terriFIED") is defined historically AND legally and does not include random acts by whackjobs, no matter how terrifying they may be to a community. I'm sorry if this sounds prim or picayune-ish, but I'm tired of definitions becoming meaningless in the face of people trying to redefine them every 5 minutes to suit whatever situation. Doing this means that ANYTHING that scares me can be labeled terrorism, because hey...it's what I say it is! The thought of a serial rapist loose in my town scares the willies out of me, do I get to call him a terrorist? How about when a guy robs a bank and shoots someone? MUCH more common than a gunman in a theatre. I'm and all my friends are now scared to do our banking, do I get to call him a terrorist too?

Calling this act terrorism is no different than those who say evolution is ONLY a theory (meaning conjecture) when the definition of a scientific theory is extremely well-defined and has nothing whatsoever to do with conjecture. In any case, the latest official US legal definitions of terrorism follow, and they very definitively include political agenda. So, unless they find this guy's manifesto published somewhere, I doubt seriously they will be prosecuting him on domestic terrorism charges.

According to a memo produced by the FBI's Terrorist Research and Analytical Center in 1994, domestic terrorism was defined as "the unlawful use of force or violence, committed by a group(s) of two or more individuals, against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."[2]

Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: "(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."[3]

 

[movie zombie]

i agree, ksinger: current criminal law covers this kind of senseless violence....but then i think it also covered acts of terrorism and that the so-called patriot act and subsequent definition was a civil liberties steal.

 

[Maria D]

Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: "(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."[3]

Thanks for the formal, legal def. of terrorism; I was not aware. But as I read the above, this could fall under the legal def. because part (B) says the act must appear to be intended in order to do one of three things. The first of these things is to intimidate or coerce a civilian population which is exactly what this act did: intimidate a civilian population. The fact that the word "or" is used in part (B) means that one of these three things must hold true. At least that's the mathematical usage of "or," if all three things must be true "and" would be used. Is the usage of "or" different in law?

The difference to me between this act and the ones you mention is that it was well thought out/planned in advance to intimidate the population and insure successful carnage, much like the 9/11 attacks and Oklahoma City bombing (although I believe McVeigh was not considered a terrorist by the US govt).

By the way, I could have correctly used the word "terrorized" instead of "terrified."

 

[JewelFreak]

KSinger's right. Terrorism is a criminal act comitted by or for a group to further an objective, usually a political one. From the little so far released about this guy, he wanted to express hatred, rage, frustration, from a personal perspective. I also agree with her that words lose their impact when they are stretched to describe situations to which they don't apply. Terrifying people, no matter how traumatically, does not automatically equal "terrorism."

I'm so deeply sad for everyone there, especially those who lost family or friends. Also for the parents of this turkey; I read the mother knew nothing about it till a reporter called her in San Diego. They must be shattered on many levels.

--- Laurie

 

[lulu]

Kids under 13 should not be at a midnight screening of a PG-13 movie full of violence, period. I cannot fathom bringing a 4 month old--surely the sound levels alone might be harmful. No, it's not the victim's faults that they were victims. No one ever knows when they might be in the middle of a crazy, dangerous situation.

I'm Canadian, and yes, I do take exception to American gun laws--from a distance. The fact that someone can LEGALLY purchase a semi-automatic assault rifle with 100 shot mags is CRAZY. Sure, you have the right to defend yourself. But in what scenario does any civilian need that much defence?? The other issue is the body armor. He could have taken out all the first responders with his armor and weapons--they were as good or better than what the police had. Again, that is CRAZY.

Is he mentally ill. I don't know. Anyone can have a psychotic break I suppose. But lets not villainize all mentaly ill people. This guy was I'm sure a very brilliant person. Brilliant people can devise brilliantly awful crimes, that's for sure. This whole thing sickens me. I just can't imagine the impact on all these families. It's too terrible. And it was so easy to do apparently.

What type of weapon did the Eaton Centre shooter use last month? Ironically, one of the Colorado victims was also present at that shooting.

I think many people don't understand that a semiautomatic weapon fires one shot for every trigger pull. It is not a "machine gun".

It's a semi-automatic that had 100 shot rounds. There's no reason in the world for a civilian to have that ability. That's 100 shots, one at a time with no reloading. The only time people had to escape was during reloading. I'm not asserting that people in the US should have their gun freedom taken away. I've been around guns all my life.

I'm certainly not arguing that people need semiautomatic weapons. When you first posted I started researching Canadian gun laws and I can't find a prohibition against semiautomatic werapons-can you link me? I can't find out what kind of weapon the Eaton guy had and I'm interested.
Another interesting fact is that the Eaton shooter was on house arrest for previous crimes and yet he still had a gun. How did that happen??

 

[Autumnovember]

It is something that you really never get over, having been in a massacre myself back in 1987 in Palm Bay. The guy that did the shooting was on death row for over 20 years and died of natural causes. So don't expect anything fast to happen in the incident in the movie theater. Just know that it can happen anywhere you are non matter where and be alert.

The shooter will be in court on Monday. I'd say that's pretty fast.


As someone who lives just 20 minutes from this theater, I can tell you the focus has not been the age of those who were in theater. The 3 month old has pulled through but the 6 year old has passed away. The father of the daughter is in custody for making mention of hopeful thoughts that someone else murders the killer. Also 2 deaths are of service men. I had chills from this all day, absolutely terrible.

As for the mayor of Aurora saying that Aurora is safe and nothing ever happens like this there. That is untrue. I'd say about 40% of the murders in the denver metro area occur in Aurora and I would never ever live there, this event affirms that.

While I agree that a 3 month old should not be a theater, it is not uncommon here to see children 6 and older at these midnight movies. I wouldn't take my own child to a movie that late, but I don't feel this is the time to be judging those who do.

The atmosphere is colorado is something I've never felt before. People are treating others with more kindness and compassion and just trying to be there for each other. I thank God that none of my friends were at that movie. The majority of people who have been listed among the dead are 27, the age range of myself and all of my friends. I hope this is killer is brought to justice quickly and swiftly and that the families and friends of the deceased are able to find some peace eventually. Colorado will never forget July 20th.

Completely agreed. When my husband asked me why a 3 month old was in a theatre that late, all I said was "at this point, does it matter? the baby is dead...what's done is done, why even ask that?" As you said, I just don't think this is the time to be judging the parents of those whose children have died.

 

[FrekeChild]

The baby didn't die and wasn't even hit by any bullets.

 

[Autumnovember]

The baby didn't die and wasn't even hit by any bullets.

No? I read the baby passed?
Either way 3 month old or 6 year old. Kids died...parents aren't to blame.

 

[random_thought]

The baby didn't die and wasn't even hit by any bullets.

No? I read the baby passed?
Either way 3 month old or 6 year old. Kids died...parents aren't to blame.

The 6 year old passed, the baby is ok. The baby was released from the hospital the next day I believe.

 

[Autumnovember]

The baby didn't die and wasn't even hit by any bullets.

No? I read the baby passed?
Either way 3 month old or 6 year old. Kids died...parents aren't to blame.

The 6 year old passed, the baby is ok. The baby was released from the hospital the next day I believe.

Ah, I see. I'm reading 94739847394932489 reports. Thanks for clearing that up for me!!

Still very sad

 

[ksinger]

Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: "(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."[3]

Thanks for the formal, legal def. of terrorism; I was not aware. But as I read the above, this could fall under the legal def. because part (B) says the act must appear to be intended in order to do one of three things. The first of these things is to intimidate or coerce a civilian population which is exactly what this act did: intimidate a civilian population. The fact that the word "or" is used in part (B) means that one of these three things must hold true. At least that's the mathematical usage of "or," if all three things must be true "and" would be used. Is the usage of "or" different in law?

The difference to me between this act and the ones you mention is that it was well thought out/planned in advance to intimidate the population and insure successful carnage, much like the 9/11 attacks and Oklahoma City bombing (although I believe McVeigh was not considered a terrorist by the US govt).

By the way, I could have correctly used the word "terrorized" instead of "terrified."

Well, if I was going "legalese", I would focus on the appearance of intent and defining just what is mean by "civilian population". I don't see that he had much intent to coerce or intimidate a larger population, he simply meant to kill as many as possible of the condensed group in the theatre. Any intimidation outside of there, up to and including the whole country, was just a happy unintended by-product of the killing, our own fear-saturated culture, and the 24-hour national news cycle. I also suspect like many of these shooters, he may have also intended to kill himself at the end of the rampage, but lost his nerve. But that really IS conjecture on my part.

As for McVeigh, perhaps he wasn't charged under terrorism laws - I'm not sure exactly what we had on the books at that time, nothing approaching the Patriot Act I'm sure, but that was also a time before we collectively saw terrorists behind every bush and every single act or thought was parsed through a political lens. After all, Murrah was just the first inkling of the massive loss of our collective innocence, that was completed on 9/11.

I'm sure had the Murrah bombing happened post 9/11, the full weight of every terrorism law would have been thrown at him. My husband and I have argued this very thing -whether the '95 bombing was terrorism or not. He says, strictly speaking, that since it was mostly revenge, it doesn't meet the definition. I say that since it was completely politically motivated AND was intended to serve as a call to arms to others with similar politics, it was terrorism. McVeigh's intent was to serve as a catalyst for MORE acts like his, acts intended to put a coercive pressure on the government and as "statements" to the general population about how evil they should think our government is. That looks a LOT more like terrorism than this guy.

 

[miraclesrule]

What bothers me the most about this whole case is the lack of any type of regulation that would detect that this perp purchased four different weapons, including a semi-automatic assault rifle. Then he also purchases tactical protective gear, including throat, groin, and ankle protection; assault clips, full body armor, knives, and a boatload of ammo. This is not the run of the mill guy who goes into a WalMart and purchases a shot gun.

This is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of all of the items he purchased in a very short window of time. Most of this type of gear is military or government issued. I know that it would be too ridiculous to expect a central regulation or reporting center to detect this type of suspicious activity, but I know it isn't impossible.

As a risk manager, it is in my nature to prevent injury and damage....and post-event is the best time to perform a retrospective review to prevent this incidences from occurring again, if it is at all possible. However, as it was pointed out last night on Piers Morgan, wehave had an attack on a president, a congresswoman, a high school, a college, and now a movie theatre. If this isn't enough to get reasonable people to discuss rational gun laws, then it will probably never happen. As sad as that is to acknowledge and as sickening as it is to stomach.

Ugh..

 

[Sha]

What bothers me the most about this whole case is the lack of any type of regulation that would detect that this perp purchased four different weapons, including a semi-automatic assault rifle. Then he also purchases tactical protective gear, including throat, groin, and ankle protection; assault clips, full body armor, knives, and a boatload of ammo. This is not the run of the mill guy who goes into a WalMart and purchases a shot gun.

This is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of all of the items he purchased in a very short window of time. Most of this type of gear is military or government issued. I know that it would be too ridiculous to expect a central regulation or reporting center to detect this type of suspicious activity, but I know it isn't impossible.

As a risk manager, it is in my nature to prevent injury and damage....and post-event is the best time to perform a retrospective review to prevent this incidences from occurring again, if it is at all possible. However, as it was pointed out last night on Piers Morgan, wehave had an attack on a president, a congresswoman, a high school, a college, and now a movie theatre. If this isn't enough to get reasonable people to discuss rational gun laws, then it will probably never happen. As sad as that is to acknowledge and as sickening as it is to stomach.

Ugh..

Ditto to your whole post, miracles. I don't understand it either. Unless something is done, it's just a matter of time until something similar or worse happens, sad to say. What's the point of soothing words from the politicians when there's absolutely NOTHING that will change to prevent a similar disaster from happening tomorrow? There could be other people (sane or otherwise) ordering and stockpiling and plotting right now. What's to stop them? I feel like this scene has been replayed so many times...then it's just back to normal until the next incident occurs. Sigh..

 

[iheartscience]

I read this article a couple of days ago and I completely agree. http://www.freep.com/article/20120722/COL10/207220572

An excerpt:

"It happened again.

Quit crying. Stop asking for prayer.

We don't really care.

I don't have to recount the times in our American past that some nut job with a gun has shot dozens of people.

But what I can't figure out is why we watch it, do nothing about it and then cry when it happens again?

<SNIP>

If we cared, we would do something about the weapons of mass destruction for which there is no excuse. Not the .22 that a young mother might keep by her bed or the .38 that a cop carries off-duty, but assault rifles whose sole reason for being is to kill people quickly.

If we cared, we would have done something about those three months ago after a guy killed seven people and injured three because he couldn't talk to a staff member at a small Korean Christian college in Oakland, Calif.

If we cared, we would have done something last August after a guy killed his girlfriend and six others following a family argument in Summit County, Ohio.

If we cared, we would have done something in 2009 after a guy shot 10 people, including members of his own family, in Geneva and Samson, Ala."

 

[justginger]

That was a very direct, cut through the crap article, Thing. I really enjoyed it and completely agreed with the author's opinion.

 

[Sha]

GREAT article! Well-written and hard-hitting. I agree with all the points made.

 

[aljdewey]

We would have done something? What would that have been? What could we have done that would have *effectively* neutralized people who are either mentally unstable, filled with anger and rage, and hell-bent on getting the notice they crave? How exactly would we ensure that NO means of destruction are available to those people?

There is only so much a society can do, and most of what they COULD do, they won't......because it takes more time, energy and selflessness than most are willing to invest. For all of these mass casualty incidents, there are ALWAYS people interviewed after the fact who noted odd behavior, deviant thinking, or something being "off" with the perpetrators.......but no one speaks up. It's much easier to sit back and blame others *after* the fact than it is to get personally invested in contributing to prevention *beforehand*.

I'd love to see more "see something, say something" efforts - I think they'd be far more effective than empty legislation that cannot be effectively enforced.

 

[Tuckins1]

We would have done something? What would that have been? What could we have done that would have *effectively* neutralized people who are either mentally unstable, filled with anger and rage, and hell-bent on getting the notice they crave? How exactly would we ensure that NO means of destruction are available to those people?

There is only so much a society can do, and most of what they COULD do, they won't......because it takes more time, energy and selflessness than most are willing to invest. For all of these mass casualty incidents, there are ALWAYS people interviewed after the fact who noted odd behavior, deviant thinking, or something being "off" with the perpetrators.......but no one speaks up. It's much easier to sit back and blame others *after* the fact than it is to get personally invested in contributing to prevention *beforehand*.

I'd love to see more "see something, say something" efforts - I think they'd be far more effective than empty legislation that cannot be effectively enforced.

Here here!