rushmc 23 #601 August 1, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote I think for myself Weird then how often your talking points match word for word so many others on day and date then. Hmmm... Great Simple minds think alike FIFY My stalker is back And leading with a PA, right out of the gate! Matt Normal MOA"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #602 August 1, 2012 And the sexual tension is palpable in this thread as well. Can't you two get a room?I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #603 August 1, 2012 QuoteAnd the sexual tension is palpable in this thread as well. Can't you two get a room? I have no idea what either of you mean"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #604 August 1, 2012 QuoteQuote When I think about people on the cusp of criminality, I can't help but think there are calculations that go through their minds. I think a big one is, "How easy will it be to be able to do this and can I pull it off?" Now, while it may be true that a determined nut job or criminal probably will do quite a bit to make it happen. I think there's a lot of people on the cusp who are incredibly lazy. They aren't going to devote a few years of their lives learning how to be a ninja so they can knock over a 7/11, if they can pick up a gun and do it today. I think the amazing ease with which guns are available is a factor. According to JCD, these guys are fucking geniuses who cannot be stopped. I hold to the same perspective you suggest - that they are not Einsteins and are easily deterred by people who can fight back. Unless they are aiming for death by cop, they tend to pick places where no one can defend themselves, rather than police stations or gun ranges. But they would not be deterred by having a much harder time getting guns right? Did this guy go to a theatre because he knew guns were not allowed, or was there maybe another motive to going to that theatre? Did he have a choice of going to a theatre that does allow weapons, in that area? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #605 August 1, 2012 QuoteThe anti's tend to focus on emotions, not facts. Oh I think both sides are guilty of that. Isn't the act of carrying a gun often driven by the emotion of feeling safer? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 800 #606 August 1, 2012 Not always. Don't know anyone who does actually. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #607 August 1, 2012 QuoteQuoteThe anti's tend to focus on emotions, not facts. Oh I think both sides are guilty of that. Isn't the act of carrying a gun often driven by the emotion of feeling safer? I can't say for others. For me, it's another piece of emergency equipment. I have flashlights, fire extinguishers, knives, first aid kits, etc. at home, in cars, and office. My uniform always has a penlight, knife and pen in the sleeve. If someone is stopped on the side of the road, I stop to help. I can't be much help without the right equipment. A pistol is just another piece of equipment. When I go kayaking, it's a stainless .22 magnum on a caribiner for wild animals. When I skydive, I have a prepaid disposable cell in my bicep pocket in case I land out. When I'm mountain biking, it's a tube repair kit. I try to be prepared for what I might encounter. Most often, my emergency supplies are used in taking care of someone else.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #608 August 1, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote When I think about people on the cusp of criminality, I can't help but think there are calculations that go through their minds. I think a big one is, "How easy will it be to be able to do this and can I pull it off?" Now, while it may be true that a determined nut job or criminal probably will do quite a bit to make it happen. I think there's a lot of people on the cusp who are incredibly lazy. They aren't going to devote a few years of their lives learning how to be a ninja so they can knock over a 7/11, if they can pick up a gun and do it today. I think the amazing ease with which guns are available is a factor. According to JCD, these guys are fucking geniuses who cannot be stopped. I hold to the same perspective you suggest - that they are not Einsteins and are easily deterred by people who can fight back. Unless they are aiming for death by cop, they tend to pick places where no one can defend themselves, rather than police stations or gun ranges. But they would not be deterred by having a much harder time getting guns right? Did this guy go to a theatre because he knew guns were not allowed, or was there maybe another motive to going to that theatre? Did he have a choice of going to a theatre that does allow weapons, in that area? we were talking in generalizations here. With over 300M guns in circulation, it's essentially impossible to make it that hard for crooks to get guns, just as they get pot and coke by the kilos despite the billions spent on drug enforcement laws. But you guarantee that only a tiny percentage of good citizens will disobey the new law and get guns for protection...those who moved to remote ranches (compounds) for the millenium are the type that would ignore such laws. There certainly has been discussion about this guy in particular. I wrote that with stricter laws he probably would have had more difficulty obtaining a gun since he was lacking in friends (straw purchasers or sellers) and wasn't tied to the criminal world (gangs, drugs). But he still had his explosives, so that's the most likely route he would have taken. He also had the benefit of time, unless he was hell bent on doing this for the movie opener. Nonetheless, if he had gotten but a single gun, he still shoots double digits, and it remains just as horrible to the country. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #609 August 1, 2012 QuoteBut he still had his explosives, so that's the most likely route he would have taken. See, logically that doesn't make sense. He already had access to explosives, but specifically chose to be present and commit the crime with guns. In his mind, he must have had a reason to use the guns in stead of the explosives. Not until you have discovered that reason can you state in any way if he would have used explosives if he didn't have access to guns. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #610 August 1, 2012 QuoteQuoteBut he still had his explosives, so that's the most likely route he would have taken. See, logically that doesn't make sense. He already had access to explosives, but specifically chose to be present and commit the crime with guns. In his mind, he must have had a reason to use the guns in stead of the explosives. Not until you have discovered that reason can you state in any way if he would have used explosives if he didn't have access to guns. Columbine is the case example. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #611 August 2, 2012 You'll have to explain your reasoning for me to understand what you are getting at. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #612 August 2, 2012 you said it can't stated in *any* way that he might have resorted to explosives. But 1) he had explosives and 2) the last similar event in Colorado involved two boys trying to kill with explosives. Unless you think the Joker motif would only kill using guns, it seems quite reasonable to believe he would have made the substitution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #613 August 2, 2012 This just in... http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/01/justice/colorado-theater-shooting-psychiatrist/index.html?hpt=hp_t1quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #614 August 2, 2012 QuoteThis just in... http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/01/justice/colorado-theater-shooting-psychiatrist/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 probably some smoke here, but can't be happy about unnamed sources leaking nonspecific information about someone's counseling. It's this sort of thing that leads to laws that demand nearly complete privacy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #615 August 2, 2012 Well, if I'm reading the article correctly, she was supposed to bring up something if she felt it was a legitimate threat to safety (which I kind of think sounds reasonable) and she did six weeks before the shooting. Now, I'm not exactly certain what kind of doctor/confidentiality requires the doctor to remain silent if other people's lives are in jeopardy or if once that has been broached the confidentiality extends to other people like campus police. What I do know is, based on the article and assuming it's correct, it appears he was identified as a serious threat to safety six weeks before the shooting and even though that happened, for some reason the guy wasn't put on some sort of watch list, visited by cops and he still had the ability to purchase guns. To me, that sounds a little broken. We have to take this article with a grain of salt for now, but if it's true, there needs to be changes made to that part of the system. Edited to add: In doing just the briefest of searches tonight, it appears doctor patient confidentiality is NOT a constraint when a 3rd party's life is in danger (which kinda seems pretty reasonable to me) and the doctor is generally allowed to inform the intended victim and contact the police. In other words, the doctor doesn't have to listen to the patient say they're going to kill somebody and do nothing about it simply waiting for the murder to take place. Again, to me that sounds fairly reasonable.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #616 August 2, 2012 Quote"It takes more than just statements," one source told the station, explaining that Holmes would have had to tell Fenton "something specific" before she would have to report it to law enforcement. "He would have to tell her he had taken steps to make it happen," another source told the station.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #617 August 2, 2012 Quotefor some reason the guy wasn't put on some sort of watch list, visited by cops and he still had the ability to purchase guns. Paul, based on your ramblings here you and all of the rest of us would be on a watch list....---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #618 August 2, 2012 QuoteQuotefor some reason the guy wasn't put on some sort of watch list, visited by cops and he still had the ability to purchase guns. Paul, based on your ramblings here you and all of the rest of us would be on a watch list.... Cute. But I've never made a threat to anyone's life either in front of them or behind their back.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #619 August 2, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuotefor some reason the guy wasn't put on some sort of watch list, visited by cops and he still had the ability to purchase guns. Paul, based on your ramblings here you and all of the rest of us would be on a watch list.... Cute. But I've never made a threat to anyone's life either in front of them or behind their back. Maybe I've missed it, but do we know that he made an actual threat to anyone's life during his counseling? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #620 August 2, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotefor some reason the guy wasn't put on some sort of watch list, visited by cops and he still had the ability to purchase guns. Paul, based on your ramblings here you and all of the rest of us would be on a watch list.... Cute. But I've never made a threat to anyone's life either in front of them or behind their back. Maybe I've missed it, but do we know that he made an actual threat to anyone's life during his counseling? Using the standard in the article I posted yesterday, it certainly appears he did.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #621 August 2, 2012 >Maybe I've missed it, but do we know that he made an actual threat to anyone's life >during his counseling? This is sort of the magic phrase - "he could potentially be a danger to others." That's a standard used to determine when to hold someone for a psychiatric screening in a hospital environment. When Amy was working in the ER, there were some homeless guys who would come in on cold nights and say "I think I might be a danger to myself or others" because they knew that that statement would result in their admission into the psych ward for evaluation, and that usually took all night. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #622 August 2, 2012 You just can't stop with the PA's can you? Quotedisarming not so honest citizens to try and stop them from becoming criminals like mass murderers. Already illegal. Your 'ideas' do nothing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #623 August 2, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuotefor some reason the guy wasn't put on some sort of watch list, visited by cops and he still had the ability to purchase guns. Paul, based on your ramblings here you and all of the rest of us would be on a watch list.... Cute. But I've never made a threat to anyone's life either in front of them or behind their back. Cute. You missed the point.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #624 August 2, 2012 QuoteThe act of drunk driving, even if you do not kill anybody, is already rather heavily penalized and there are specific spot checks to check for that behaviour. Just sitting in your car while drunk can lead to penalties. It is illegal to carry a gun while drunk in most States. It is illegal to get a gun with intent to use it for a crime in ALL of them. QuoteI find it dishartening that one would even question why one would want to discuss what could be done to prevent mass murderers from using a theatre as a shooting gallery. And there is the problem. You don't want to discuss what can be done to prevent a mass murderer, you want to discuss how to ban or limit an object. This would be like trying to 'fix' DUI's by banning cars from people that do not even drink. You want to discuss how to prevent mass murder.... Well, better reporting of people with known mental health issues would have worked in VT, Columbine, AZ and here in CO. Overall better mental health care would have maybe done something as well. But banning an item clearly does not work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #625 August 2, 2012 QuoteEver see a little child when faced with the possibility of losing a toy? Ever see a little child with an irrational fear of the 'monster' in the closet? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
