12 killed, 50 wounded at Aurora movie theater

[AspireToExpire]

My issue was with a study about souls and how everyone anyone comes in contact with develops traits from the other.

I suppose this makes more sense out of the previous statements.

We do take on personalities traits from other people, but I interpret that different than your original statement.

I don't think so. People do experiments, test conjectures/ideas/claims/hypotheses that can develop into theories and laws. There's also a political aspect and monetary aspect.

However science requires nothing from other people sitting back to say what they think.

/off topic

Did I say it requires it? "I don't think so.". However, it absolutely happens. I also wouldn't say it is really that off topic when discussing whether or not a person could be influenced by one form or another of art to execute something like this. That's just me though.

That's one way to approach.

 

[jeneticallymodified]

To simplify even further, a little part of you lives on from every person you come in contact with. Subconsciously your traits imprint within them over time.

uh huh......

Yeah he does. Maybe the reality of the pain he's caused and the lives he's irrevocably destroyed is sinking in. I hope he lives out the rest of his life in mental hell.

i hope he gets a whole bucketload of professional help. i hope that everybody who experienced this event does.

In contrast to the idiot who left his baby behind as a diversion so he could escape, are three men who stayed and protected their girlfriends. Sadly, all three of them died. How do you deal with knowing someone you loved died while saving you?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...l?utm_hp_ref=impact&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

you have little choice but to deal with the fact that as much as you loved them, you were also very much loved by them.

 

[Ansciess]

Although in this case, it appears he already broke the law with the 100-round magazine he had, so I doubt a law limiting him to 6 or 8 round magazines or revolvers would have done any good at all.

I'm not sure he broke the law with his ammunition.

A second federal law enforcement official said Holmes had a high-capacity ammunition magazine in the assault rifle. Oates said a 100-round drum magazine was recovered at the scene.

The type of ammunition magazine Holmes is accused of using was banned for new production under the old federal assault weapon ban, said Daniel Vice, senior attorney for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

When the ban expired in 2004, gun manufacturers flooded the market with the type of high-capacity magazines Holmes used Friday, Vice said.

Oates did not specify the type of rifle but said that experts told him "with that drum magazine, he could have gotten off 50 to 60 rounds, even if it was semiautomatic, within one minute. And as far as we know, it was a pretty rapid pace of fire in that theater."

Oates said Holmes purchased ammunition over the Internet, including thousands of rounds and multiple magazines for the assault rifle.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/shooting_suspect_bought_police_ammo_720ERzVvDlGsNyyENQ21dI#ixzz21W90Nz1G​

 

[das_nut]

I'm not sure he broke the law with his ammunition

I stand corrected. Denver bans the ownership/possession/sale of high-capacity magazines. Colorado law, from what I can tell, does not.

So if he took the weapon into Denver, he was breaking the law. If he kept the weapon in Colorado, he wasn't (unless he concealed carried, which Aurora doesn't seem to approve).

I may be wrong with the above. The Colorado state statutes suck for searching.

 

[Ansciess]

It really doesn't matter in practical terms if one city or county or state makes high capacity magazines illegal, as long as they're legal in other places in the US and purchasable over the internet. To make them less accessible they would have to be illegal all over the US and not purchasable over the net.

 

[das_nut]

Yes. Plus, there's so many weapons out there that they will still be available to those who are determined. What makes us safer is that most people don't really want to commit massacres. Very few people really want to shoot people in a crowded theater. People are basically good, or at least good enough that they don't want to randomly kill other people.

 

[Ansciess]

Plus, there's so many weapons out there that they will still be available to those who are determined.

Sure, but gun control has to start somewhere. There would be turn in and buy back programs for certain weapons and ammunition, and eventually they would be harder and harder to obtain.

 

[das_nut]

I'm not sure that would solve anything. Unless you want to ban all guns, which has its own problems.

 

[Ansciess]

I'm not sure that would solve anything. Unless you want to ban all guns, which has its own problems.

You're right. Let's just make assault rifles and 100 round drum magazines legal everywhere. What's the difference, as long as anyone has access to a revolver, it's over. No point in trying to control the kinds of weapons that make mass killing easier.

I notice a kind of defeatism in anti gun control people that makes change impossible.

 

[das_nut]

I am not anti-gun control, nor am I pro-gun control.

I'm semi-gun control. Lets keep the guns out of the hands of crazy people and criminals. Admittedly, in this case, it wouldn't have made any difference (since this guy had a clean criminal record and no mental illnesses were reported before the shooting). But this guy was also smart enough to rig bombs - him not having access to weapons would probably has caused him to inflect casualties another, perhaps more deadly way.

This is one of my beefs with the NRA (and I believe mlp said something similar): They are so rabidly opposed to any gun control that they fall into the extremist territory. I'm not opposed to gun control. But I'm opposed to bad gun control.

I also like to treat adults as adults, and I realize that human life is fragile. We can't remove the risk to human life by a person who is obviously determined to kill people. And I don't really think we should restrict the behaviors of most human beings just because of a few crazy people. After all, we are a democracy (well, republic) where I'm posting from, and where many other VVers are posting from. If we don't assume most people can be trusted with a firearm, why should we trust them with a vote?

 

[Ansciess]

him not having access to weapons would probably has caused him to inflect casualties another, perhaps more deadly way.

Like I said that's speculation. But we know he had access to a semi automatic assault rifle and a 100 round drum magazine.

If we don't assume most people can be trusted with a firearm, why should we trust them with a vote?

You keep writing as though all firearms are the same and as if people arguing for stricter gun control are saying that revolvers should be banned, which is not the case.

 

[das_nut]

What about semi-automatics? Assuming you are willing to drop the expired magazine, it reloads remarkably fast.

See, I'm for effective gun control. Banning something just to get votes even though it makes a mostly-trivial difference in the danger level annoys the heck out of me.

 

[Ansciess]

What about semi-automatics? Assuming you are willing to drop the expired magazine, it reloads remarkably fast.

Yeah, at this point I would ban the sale and transfer of semi automatics to regular citizens.

Look, if I could confine all the gun enthusiasts, gun nuts, mentally ill people with guns, and everyone else who is happy with the status quo re. guns to their own part of the country to have at it with each other, to shoot each other and protect each other from others who are trying to shoot them (the more guns=more safety mentality), I would like that. Because I would like my area to have more sane laws regarding guns.

 

[das_nut]

You don't trust people with semi-automatics, but you trust them to vote. That's far more dangerous.

 

[Ansciess]

There's limited damage one individual can do with voting. Even one very deranged person. One vote doesn't make a difference.

One person like the theater shooter can do a tremendous amount of damage and destroy and take away many lives.

 

[das_nut]

Sure, but that one individual could probably do the same thing with explosives, or even with an automobile and a crowd.

 

[Ansciess]

Sure, but that one individual could probably do the same thing with explosives, or even with an automobile and a crowd.

Maybe they would do that, maybe they wouldn't. It's speculation. It may also be a different psychology to commit a mass murder by driving a car into a crowd than to go into a theater like Rambo. People can do any of these 3 things now, but in the US they mostly use guns to commit mass murder.

 

[das_nut]

Guns are considered the way to kill people. They are popularized as the method of causing death. But by removing them, we may just create killers who are more imaginative.

 

[Ansciess]

by removing them, we may just create killers who are more imaginative.

Maybe. Maybe not. It's speculation. A lot of people aren't very creative.

 

[K-II]

I'm curious now. What banned things is it actually difficult to get in the US?