| Breetai |
|
Semi-Lurker "full time drinker"
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 11/02/03
|
|
Posts: 419
|
|
Loc: Omaha
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
|
[ATTACHED IMAGE]
|
|
|
|
Re: ....
[Re: Breetai]
#292318 - 07/21/12 02:46 AM
|
|
|
You've no comment whatsoever on it?
Well then:
I've seen two of these now, and had no idea what the first even meant. I don't recall similar portraits of Wendy or Ronald McDonald mourning similar shootings in their respective establishments. Also, I fucking hate ribbons. Damn "I care more than you" tags, they are. Used here now because crosses are out of fashion.
I've avoided the news stories, did this guy intentionally target the audience of a showing of Batman specifically, or was it just convenient?
Was it something to do with this establishment, even, or did he choose it because he damn well knew the fucking mall banned firearms on the premises, making for easy targets?
|
|
|
| *=/STARRIDER\=* |
|
MAME Punk
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 02/06/12
|
|
Posts: 335
|
|
Loc: an open field west of a white house with a boarded front door.
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: ....
[Re: TriggerFin]
#292321 - 07/21/12 02:56 AM
|
|
|
"Was it something to do with this establishment, even, or did he choose it because he damn well knew the fucking mall banned firearms on the premises, making for easy targets?"
I was thinking the exact same thing, in an instance like this anyone in his near proximity could probably have ended the carnage in a second if they were concealed owners and had their gun. I did not know about the ban until I read your comment.
|
There is no law in the arena
|
|
italie |
|
MAME owes italie many thank yous, hah
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/20/03
|
|
Posts: 15246
|
|
Loc: BoomTown
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: ....
[Re: TriggerFin]
#292324 - 07/21/12 03:16 AM
|
|
|
> You've no comment whatsoever on it?
>
> Well then:
It's an historic event, smitdogg being silent.
> I've seen two of these now, and had no idea what the first even meant. I don't recall
> similar portraits of Wendy or Ronald McDonald mourning similar shootings in their
> respective establishments. Also, I fucking hate ribbons. Damn "I care more than you"
> tags, they are. Used here now because crosses are out of fashion.
>
I like angry Trigg.
> I've avoided the news stories, did this guy intentionally target the audience of a
> showing of Batman specifically, or was it just convenient?
He is supposedly calling himself "The Joker" right now...soooooo.
> Was it something to do with this establishment, even, or did he choose it because he
> damn well knew the fucking mall banned firearms on the premises, making for easy
> targets?
No clue, but he's been buying shit for days. 6000 rounds of ammo, 4 guns were the number I just heard. Apartment is booby trapped with incendiary devices. Sounds like 'ol boy just snapped.
|
|
|
|
|
> "Was it something to do with this establishment, even, or did he choose it because he
> damn well knew the fucking mall banned firearms on the premises, making for easy
> targets?"
>
> I was thinking the exact same thing, in an instance like this anyone in his near
> proximity could probably have ended the carnage in a second if they were concealed
> owners and had their gun. I did not know about the ban until I read your comment.
I don't know that specifically about this place. It's a general rule that mall management across the country bans firearms. They do so to avoid cases where someone gets shot and they get sued for allowing them. I don't know if anyone has successfully sued for being shot when they weren't permitted to carry a licensed gun, though I recall there was at least one case.
Playing the odds. You've no standing to sue for the absence of legal firearms unless you've actually been denied entry due to carrying your own.
|
|
|
|
Re: ....
[Re: italie]
#292329 - 07/21/12 03:51 AM
|
|
|
> I like angry Trigg.
I don't. I'd just as soon people keep their damn bloody realities out of my fantasy. It ain't Reese's.
|
|
|
| Tomu Breidah |
|
No Problems, Only Solutions
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 08/14/04
|
|
Posts: 6820
|
|
Loc: Neither here, nor there.
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: ....
[Re: TriggerFin]
#292330 - 07/21/12 03:54 AM
|
|
|
> Also, I fucking hate ribbons. Damn "I care more than you"
> tags, they are. Used here now because crosses are out of fashion.
>
Ribbons turned 90 degrees resemble the "Jesus Fish". Are they the next best thing? 
|
LEVEL-4
|
|
| Breetai |
|
Semi-Lurker "full time drinker"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 11/02/03
|
|
Posts: 419
|
|
Loc: Omaha
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Sorry Trigg
[Re: TriggerFin]
#292333 - 07/21/12 04:50 AM
|
|
|
> You've no comment whatsoever on it?
>
> Well then:
>
> I've seen two of these now, and had no idea what the first even meant. I don't recall
> similar portraits of Wendy or Ronald McDonald mourning similar shootings in their
> respective establishments. Also, I fucking hate ribbons. Damn "I care more than you"
> tags, they are. Used here now because crosses are out of fashion.
>
> I've avoided the news stories, did this guy intentionally target the audience of a
> showing of Batman specifically, or was it just convenient?
>
> Was it something to do with this establishment, even, or did he choose it because he
> damn well knew the fucking mall banned firearms on the premises, making for easy
> targets?
Sorry Trigg.. My biggest problem with the coverage of this is...they keep showing his face and saying his name! They should not give that info.
|
|
|
| Gor |
|
Giver of truth.
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 1925
|
|
Loc: The basement
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
|
> "Was it something to do with this establishment, even, or did he choose it because he
> damn well knew the fucking mall banned firearms on the premises, making for easy
> targets?"
>
> I was thinking the exact same thing, in an instance like this anyone in his near
> proximity could probably have ended the carnage in a second if they were concealed
> owners and had their gun. I did not know about the ban until I read your comment.
Quote:
Federal and local enforcement officials said he was sheathed in a helmet, a gas mask, a tactical bulletproof vest, throat and groin protectors and tactical gloves.
Assuming the concealed gun owner could deal with the tear gas that was spreading in the theater without panic,
they may have also needed armor piercing rounds to end it in that second.
|
Oh for Pete's sake.
loser.com
|
|
GatKong |
|
Tetris Mason
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 04/20/07
|
|
Posts: 5907
|
|
Loc: Sector 9
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: ....
[Re: TriggerFin]
#292340 - 07/21/12 05:33 AM
|
|
|
> > "Was it something to do with this establishment, even, or did he choose it because
> he
> > damn well knew the fucking mall banned firearms on the premises, making for easy
> > targets?"
> >
> > I was thinking the exact same thing, in an instance like this anyone in his near
> > proximity could probably have ended the carnage in a second if they were concealed
> > owners and had their gun. I did not know about the ban until I read your comment.
>
> I don't know that specifically about this place. It's a general rule that mall
> management across the country bans firearms. They do so to avoid cases where someone
> gets shot and they get sued for allowing them. I don't know if anyone has
> successfully sued for being shot when they weren't permitted to carry a licensed gun,
> though I recall there was at least one case.
>
> Playing the odds. You've no standing to sue for the absence of legal firearms unless
> you've actually been denied entry due to carrying your own.
It's retarded logic... We don't want any gun violence in our establishment, so let's ban those sane law abiding people who have passed extra scrutiny to get a concealed weapon permit from carrying their permitted handguns. We expect the criminally insane wacko to likewise honor our gun ban, and when they don't.... We need to figure out a way to keep even more sane law abiding people from being able to defend themselves, and just hope the criminally insane will THEN start to follow THAT law too.
Same retarded logic after 911... The fourth plane's passengers used a cell phone to realize they were a weapon... Which allowed them to try and take back the plane, saving who knows how many lives from a target that was never hit... So let's ban all cellphone use on commercial airplanes... God forbid THAT act of heroism ever repeat itself.
And yet already here come all the calls for more gun control.
|
|
|
|
|
> I was thinking the exact same thing, in an instance like this anyone in his near
> proximity could probably have ended the carnage in a second if they were concealed
> owners and had their gun. I did not know about the ban until I read your comment.
Bullshit. You seriously think you could get the guy in a crowded, darkened, smoke-filled cinema when he's wearing a bullet-proof vest? You'd need to place the guy, clear the line in front and behind him, and get a shot on a part of him that isn't armoured. You would've just increased the number of victims.
|
|
|
| Foxhack |
|
Furry guy
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 01/30/04
|
|
Posts: 2409
|
|
Loc: Spicy Canada
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: ....
[Re: GatKong]
#292346 - 07/21/12 06:43 AM
|
|
|
> And yet already here come all the calls for more gun control.
There should be one rule for gun control. Just one.
If you don't pass a psychological exam that proves you're not crazy, you don't get a gun. Simple and to the point. It wouldn't stop responsible people from getting guns and it'd keep them out of the crazies hands.
But noooooooooo.
|
|
|
|
Re: ....
[Re: Vas Crabb]
#292347 - 07/21/12 07:28 AM
|
|
|
> > I was thinking the exact same thing, in an instance like this anyone in his near
> > proximity could probably have ended the carnage in a second if they were concealed
> > owners and had their gun. I did not know about the ban until I read your comment.
>
> Bullshit. You seriously think you could get the guy in a crowded, darkened,
> smoke-filled cinema when he's wearing a bullet-proof vest? You'd need to place the
> guy, clear the line in front and behind him, and get a shot on a part of him that
> isn't armoured. You would've just increased the number of victims.
If there was a chance that even a small percentage of the people in that theater had guns, then this guy would have never tried this in the first place. Nobody would need to take him out in a "darkened, smoke-filled cinema" because he wouldn't be there.
It's like a school bully that picks on people who won't (or can't) fight back. As soon as there's a danger of the bully's victim fighting back, he moves onto other "easier" targets.
|
GroovyMAME support forum on BYOAC
|
|
|
Re: ....
[Re: krick]
#292348 - 07/21/12 07:43 AM
|
|
|
> > > I was thinking the exact same thing, in an instance like this anyone in his near
> > > proximity could probably have ended the carnage in a second if they were concealed
> > > owners and had their gun. I did not know about the ban until I read your comment.
>
> >
> > Bullshit. You seriously think you could get the guy in a crowded, darkened,
> > smoke-filled cinema when he's wearing a bullet-proof vest? You'd need to place the
> > guy, clear the line in front and behind him, and get a shot on a part of him that
> > isn't armoured. You would've just increased the number of victims.
>
>
> If there was a chance that even a small percentage of the people in that theater had
> guns, then this guy would have never tried this in the first place. Nobody would need
> to take him out in a "darkened, smoke-filled cinema" because he wouldn't be there.
Three problems with that reply. First up, you're changed the angle completely — NinjaKunt claimed that someone else with a gun "could probably have ended the carnage in a second" which is action movie fantasy, given the situation. Secondly, he's chosen a plan where other people with guns are unlikely to stop him from being able to do a lot of damage. Thirdly, the people who do this kind of thing are usually quite unstable and can't be counted on to think rationally, so others with guns are unlikely to be an effective deterrent.
|
|
|
| italie |
|
MAME owes italie many thank yous, hah
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/20/03
|
|
Posts: 15246
|
|
Loc: BoomTown
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: ....
[Re: Vas Crabb]
#292366 - 07/21/12 05:39 PM
|
|
|
> > > > I was thinking the exact same thing, in an instance like this anyone in his
> near
> > > > proximity could probably have ended the carnage in a second if they were
> concealed
> > > > owners and had their gun. I did not know about the ban until I read your
> comment.
> >
> > >
> > > Bullshit. You seriously think you could get the guy in a crowded, darkened,
> > > smoke-filled cinema when he's wearing a bullet-proof vest? You'd need to place
> the
> > > guy, clear the line in front and behind him, and get a shot on a part of him that
> > > isn't armoured. You would've just increased the number of victims.
> >
> >
> > If there was a chance that even a small percentage of the people in that theater
> had
> > guns, then this guy would have never tried this in the first place. Nobody would
> need
> > to take him out in a "darkened, smoke-filled cinema" because he wouldn't be there.
>
> Three problems with that reply. First up, you're changed the angle completely —
> NinjaKunt claimed that someone else with a gun "could probably have ended the carnage
> in a second" which is action movie fantasy, given the situation. Secondly, he's
> chosen a plan where other people with guns are unlikely to stop him from being able
> to do a lot of damage. Thirdly, the people who do this kind of thing are usually
> quite unstable and can't be counted on to think rationally, so others with guns are
> unlikely to be an effective deterrent.
To pile on:
- This was Aurora, Co. I guarantee you that a handful of people inside that theater were packing. If you were expecting no guns, you'd go to a different theater. I'm guessing proximity to his apartment was the only factor here.
- He was in FULL swat gear, plus some. Vest, face shield, neck guard, leg Kevlar, groin pad, etc, etc. Anything that patrons were concealing wasn't going to do the job.
- The kid was smart. Large drums for the AR-15, tear gas diversion, car parked out back, apartment wired with what appears to be explosives or incendiaries. Heck they still aren't inside the apartment. Made purchases over the course of weeks.
- He was out of there quick. Minutes. Well planned, most people probably didn't have a real clue until it was too late.
- He seems to be the very definition of a schizophrenic break. He may be in full control of his faculties, but has completely lost touch with reality. For all we know he really does think he's the goddamn Joker. I've known a few people recovering from similar mental breaks, it isn't pretty. Smart people, even after, but you have no real indication of where they are in reality from one minute to the next.
|
|
|
| italie |
|
MAME owes italie many thank yous, hah
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/20/03
|
|
Posts: 15246
|
|
Loc: BoomTown
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Coup de gras
[Re: italie]
#292371 - 07/21/12 09:24 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wouldn't work in this case
[Re: Foxhack]
#292375 - 07/22/12 12:59 AM
|
|
|
> If you don't pass a psychological exam that proves you're not crazy, you don't get a
> gun. Simple and to the point. It wouldn't stop responsible people from getting guns
> and it'd keep them out of the crazies hands.
>
This guy had a degree in neuroscience. He was a doctoral student. If he had taken a psychological exam, there is no doubt in my mind that he would have passed with flying colors.
|
Just broke my personal record for number of consecutive days without dying!
|
|
| Foxhack |
|
Furry guy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 01/30/04
|
|
Posts: 2409
|
|
Loc: Spicy Canada
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Wouldn't work in this case
[Re: URherenow]
#292378 - 07/22/12 02:10 AM
|
|
|
> This guy had a degree in neuroscience. He was a doctoral student. If he had taken a
> psychological exam, there is no doubt in my mind that he would have passed with
> flying colors.
I mostly meant as gun control in general, and it wouldn't necessarily apply to this case, as you said. Apologies.
|
|
|
|
Re: ....
[Re: GatKong]
#292381 - 07/22/12 04:00 AM
|
|
|
> > > "Was it something to do with this establishment, even, or did he choose it
> because
> > he
> > > damn well knew the fucking mall banned firearms on the premises, making for easy
> > > targets?"
> > >
> > > I was thinking the exact same thing, in an instance like this anyone in his near
> > > proximity could probably have ended the carnage in a second if they were
> concealed
> > > owners and had their gun. I did not know about the ban until I read your comment.
>
> >
> > I don't know that specifically about this place. It's a general rule that mall
> > management across the country bans firearms. They do so to avoid cases where
> someone
> > gets shot and they get sued for allowing them. I don't know if anyone has
> > successfully sued for being shot when they weren't permitted to carry a licensed
> gun,
> > though I recall there was at least one case.
> >
> > Playing the odds. You've no standing to sue for the absence of legal firearms
> unless
> > you've actually been denied entry due to carrying your own.
>
> It's retarded logic... We don't want any gun violence in our establishment, so let's
> ban those sane law abiding people who have passed extra scrutiny to get a concealed
> weapon permit from carrying their permitted handguns. We expect the criminally insane
> wacko to likewise honor our gun ban, and when they don't.... We need to figure out a
> way to keep even more sane law abiding people from being able to defend themselves,
> and just hope the criminally insane will THEN start to follow THAT law too.
>
> Same retarded logic after 911... The fourth plane's passengers used a cell phone to
> realize they were a weapon... Which allowed them to try and take back the plane,
> saving who knows how many lives from a target that was never hit... So let's ban all
> cellphone use on commercial airplanes... God forbid THAT act of heroism ever repeat
> itself.
>
> And yet already here come all the calls for more gun control.
Wow!!! What's next? Are you gonna defend your "right" to carry guns in a plane? Are you crazy? I hope I never see a crazy fucker trying to board in an airplane which I'm piloting (or even traveling) just so he can feel safer. How am I gonna feel safe with a fucker carrying a gun near me (in a theater, in an airplane, anywhere)? How are you gonna differ a sane person from a crazy one (maybe the crazy one will be carrying a gun)? There isn't a clear line that separates madness from sanity, until shit like this happens, and if you see your self in a situation like this, and you have a gun, you'll certainly make things worst, it will be two fuckers killing innocent people.
Nothing good in this world was made with a gun in hand, no matter what the arms industry lobby says.
This type of personality, capable of committing such atrocities, is the product of the Usonian culture, which make people thinks they are owners of the world, center of the universe, masters of reason... USA is so fucked up, that even your own wants to give it an end.
EDIT:
About ban of cellphone use on commercial airplanes: there is a little chance that the cellphone signal may interfere with the navigation systems from the airplane. It`s enough for me, It`s enough for all regulatory agencies and all airline companies that I know, so you wont use the fucking phone, live with it.
|
|
|
|
Re: ....
[Re: Ramirez]
#292384 - 07/22/12 04:28 AM
|
|
|
> Wow!!! What's next? Are you gonna defend your "right" to carry guns in a plane? Are
> you crazy?
Apparently you are. To wit:
I hope I never see a crazy fucker trying to board in an airplane which I'm
> piloting (or even traveling) just so he can feel safer. How am I gonna feel safe with
> a fucker carrying a gun near me (in a theater, in an airplane, anywhere)? How are you
> gonna differ a sane person from a crazy one (maybe the crazy one will be carrying a
> gun)? There isn't a clear line that separates madness from sanity, until shit like
> this happens, and if you see your self in a situation like this, and you have a gun,
> you'll certainly make things worst, it will be two fuckers killing innocent people.
>
> Nothing good in this world was made with a gun in hand, no matter what the arms
> industry lobby says.
>
> This type of personality, capable of committing such atrocities, is the product of
> the Usonian culture, which make people thinks they are owners of the world, center of
> the universe, masters of reason... USA is so fucked up, that even your own wants to
> give it an end.
>
> EDIT:
> About ban of cellphone use on commercial airplanes: there is a little chance that the
> cellphone signal may interfere with the navigation systems from the airplane. It`s
> enough for me, It`s enough for all regulatory agencies and all airline companies that
> I know, so you wont use the fucking phone, live with it.
|
|
|
| Bekki Doll |
|
A cynical yet secular shiny retrogamer, thread ressurector and fan of the word "gay".
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 01/28/12
|
|
Posts: 771
|
|
Loc: Freeport, PA
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: ....
[Re: Foxhack]
#292404 - 07/22/12 07:22 AM
|
|
|
Quote:
If you don't pass a psychological exam that proves you're not crazy, you don't get a gun. Simple and to the point.
Crazies and guns go together like beer and smokes. No wonder the government has ONE agency dedicated to all that sheeeeeeeehit!
I've been to too many gun shows in these here red parts. I like to keep up with appearances as well as gauging the sanity level. So far, an edge-ja-mah-kate-ed new-oh do-hickee learner went crazy. And that makes the people feel more sane over here.
As for me I gave up on humanity long ago. I'm only here for the entertainment and not any type of moral enlightenment. I report. That's all. I decided long ago.
Well, I have my computers, my games, my guns, and my insanity. :-)
--Bekki
|
Combating functional illiteracy with latex-clad drama since the '80s, because old video games rule!
|
|
Index 
Threaded 
....
Reply
[Re: 
