Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.


Batman Shooting

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grisha View Post
Sorry for double posting, but found a correlation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_...ita_by_country

Most of the sprees happen in countries with lots of guns: US, Finland, Norway, France, Germany

This correlation only exists for this particular kind of crime, it's not followed in general crime rate though.
So... in the last 20 years according to the list above we have:

Russia - 1
UK - 1
Spain - 1
Switzerland - 1
France - 1
Croatia - 1

Only Switzerland is even in the top 10 of countries with per capita gun ownership in the world. Russia and Italy are close to the bottom even.

I appreciate the commentary of the soldiers in the thread, though I'm not myself in favor of conceal/carry or of unconcealed weapons in public spaces. It would be interesting if more people in American society had tactical training with these sorts of things, though I would only imagine that any kind of mandatory training would cause more problems than good.

I'm personally more interested in why places like this theater are no-carry areas. Presumably, someone somewhere saw a public safety issue that outweighed both constitutional rights and other public safety issues. It'll be curious to see if these policies change in light of this tragedy, and if they change in a way that is reasoned and sensible versus based in emotion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wippit Guud View Post
Three of the victims were men who shoved their girlfriends down and got on top of them to shield them from the bullets, and died doing so. Would they have had enough time to try to shoot back had they been armed?
I find this heart-wrenching. I don't digest mainstream news, so my sum-total experience of this has been hearing this thread arguing about the topic. To realize more strongly that there are a great number of people who have lost men, women, and children in their lives is potent. I couldn't imagine moving on after failing to save my girlfriend, or being a woman whose boyfriend died saving my life. How do you recover from that?

And that it happened while sitting down to a blockbuster.... it's horrifying.

Edit: Working a bit in the film industry, my heart also goes out to the cast and crew of the movie. First Heath Ledger and now this? Those people must be reeling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlictoatl View Post
I'm personally more interested in why places like this theater are no-carry areas. Presumably, someone somewhere saw a public safety issue that outweighed both constitutional rights and other public safety issues. It'll be curious to see if these policies change in light of this tragedy, and if they change in a way that is reasoned and sensible versus based in emotion.
Theatres are not legal 'no carry zones' in most states that I'm aware of. Rather the theatre's themselves have posted signage saying 'no firearms allowed'. Which I'm sure is far more motivated out of insurance concerns than any particular desire for the moviegoers well being.

I just ignore the signs and move on with life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Powderhorn View Post
As for training people how to shoot, maybe we SHOULD bring back the militia laws in the US. The reason guns overtook bows and arrows is simply because it is so ridiculously easy to train somebody how to shoot. The rest, the not panicking bit? Solaris has it right. All that runs through your mind is "Oh ----, oh ----, oh ----" The training just makes sure you can still act while you have that stream of consciousness going through your head.
I like this idea, but we'd need to filter out the psychos. That part could get... tricky.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zuriel View Post
Time? Most likely, yes. But that doesn't necessarily mean that they would have been effective.
They could have been. I could have. I'm sure Phuse could have been, too. Odds are pretty good that one of us who knows what we're doing would have been. Ten to thirty seconds is all the time in the world in a situation like this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zuriel View Post
I don't feel that I was being unneccesarily rude or hostile. Blunt and accurate is more like it, maybe a little bit too judgemental, but nothing I said was meant to be hostile. I'm sorry if you took it that way.
Yeah, see, that's not an apology. That's just being passive aggressive. Why even bother typing it up? If you woulda left off at telling me what you meant by it, that would have been perfectly fine. No offense meant, none taken. When you go that extra mile, though...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zuriel View Post
And what you're missing again is that it's not that some of us "think we can't" do this. I'm fairly certain that if I chose to take firearms training, I could develop into a pretty decent shot. But I choose not to carry a gun because of the many consequences that doing so could bring to myself and those around me. I feel that by assuming a 100% chance of success, you're not fairly considering some of those consequences, and IMO, that is very dangerous.
And what consequences are those, exactly? I'm familiar with them, but I'd like to hear which consequences are stopping you from firearm ownership.
I assume you're someplace where it's legal. I don't advocate law-breaking - just moving someplace where firearms are legal.

I'm not assuming a 100% chance of success. I'm assuming that even if I wildly miss my first shot and tag a civilian, my second shot will hit. The casualties will be lower than if he were allowed to continue unopposed. It's the grim math of war. Sometimes you need to risk the few for the good of the many.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zuriel View Post
Also, if you're relying on military experience in wartime to formulate your perspective on this, would it be fair to say that firefights in crowded, urban areas often result in unintended, civilian casualties? Or is it only military personnel on either side who make up the body count?
These firefights tend to involve untrained combatants against trained fighters. The untrained combatants' idea of marksmanship is the ol' "Spray n' Pray". They don't care about collateral damage, because every civilian killed is somehow our fault.
See, we don't have any data for two modern Western countries going to war against each other. We have some wargames, but no wars. Western militaries tend to have just about zero civilian casualties, even in nightmare scenarios like this.

Retweet - The Aurora killer wanted to be a supervillain. I suggest we all start calling him Sideshow Bob to deny him the one thing he wanted - @DrewCurtis

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solaris View Post
Yeah, see, that's not an apology. That's just being passive aggressive. Why even bother typing it up? If you woulda left off at telling me what you meant by it, that would have been perfectly fine. No offense meant, none taken. When you go that extra mile, though...
You're right, because no apology was necessary. I should have left off that last line of appeasement.

To the rest of your points, there's simply no reason to go on discussing it. If you see no negative consequences to firing off in a crowded area, and state that "tagging a civilian" is an acceptable circumstance and something you could live with, surely I'm not going to change your mind, and I have no desire to.

For me, that would be unacceptable, and I feel confident that there are a lot of others who would feel the same way. We'll have to agree to disagree then, and leave it at that.

In other news a
who was at the movie but not hurt
victim has just filed a lawsuit against the theater, the doctor of the defendant, and Warner Brothers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wippit Guud View Post
In other news a
who was at the movie but not hurt
victim has just filed a lawsuit against the theater, the doctor of the defendant, and Warner Brothers.
America
-We Love Our Guns
-We Will Sue the Pants Off You Over Nothing

This is why I'm saving up to move to Fiji....

linky for source

1. The theater. Karpel claims it was negligent for the theater to have an emergency door in the front that was not alarmed or guarded. It's widely believed Holmes entered the theater with a ticket, propped the emergency door open from inside, went to his car and returned with guns.

2. Holmes' doctors. Karpel says it appears Holmes was on several medications -- prescribed by one or more doctors -- at the time of the shooting and he believes the docs did not properly monitor Holmes.

3. Warner Bros. Karpel says "Dark Knight Rises" was particularly violent and Holmes mimicked some of the action. The attorney says theater goers were helpless because they thought the shooter was part of the movie. Karpel tells TMZ, "Somebody has to be responsible for the rampant violence that is shown today."





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Blog   Myth-Weavers Status